Dangerous Instrumentality

6 similar searches for Dangerous Instrumentality

Receive alerts:
by e-mail
E-mail Your information will be added to a database with the sole purpose of serving your subscription. This database is the exclusive property of vLex Networks S.L. and will never be shared with any other company. By sending your request you accept the Data Protection Policy of vLex Networks S.L. I have read and accept the Terms of Use
via RSS

1.828 documents for Dangerous Instrumentality

- Dangerous Instrumentality
Any article that is inherently hazardous or has the potential for harming people through its careless use. Examples of a da...
- West's Encyclopedia of American Law
- Com–Dor
- Liability of the commercial driver: negligent hiring meets the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
The average driver on Florida's highways shares the road with a great many commercial vehicles. From semitrailers to jitneys, gasoline tankers to oran...
- Florida Bar Journal
- Vol. 75 Nbr. 2, February 2001
- Rallya v. A.J. Rose Mfg. Co., (Ohio 2008)
employer intentional tort Fyffe dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition knowledge substantial certainty of harm summary judgment
- Ohio Supreme Court

- 'Jarod's Law' to Be Signed by Taft ; Measure Prompted by Death of Boy From Cafeteria Table
LEBANON -- Gov. Bob Taft will travel to Lebanon to sign "Jarod's Law" on Dec. 19 -- the twoyear anniversary of the death of Jarod Bennett, the boy killed by a cafeteria table at a local school. We hope to springboard off this to make sure other states have laws that will prevent any further tragedies caused by these dangerous tables or any other dangerous instrumentality in the schools," lawyer Charles Rittgers said Friday.
- Dayton Daily News
- December 06, 2005
- Miller v. Trafzer, (Ohio 2002)
Summary judgment-Civ.R. 56-employer intentional tort-3 prong test of Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc.-semi-tractor without back-up alarm-dangerous instrumentality-substantial certainty that harm will result-no previous incident required-requiring employee to perform dangerous task-leaving construction site for lunch is not a task required by the employer.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- U.S. District Court in Florida Strikes Down Federal Statute Immunizing Rental Car Companies
A federal statute which immunizes rental car companies from liability for harm caused by their vehicles violates the Commerce Clause, a U.S. District Court in Florida has ruled. The plaintiffs leased a car to a customer who was involved in an accident with the defendant. The defendant filed a state court action for personal injury, suing the plaintiffs pursuant to Florida's "dangerous instrumentality" doctrine.
- Lawyers USA
- October 11, 2007
- James Earl Rippy, Petitioner, vs. James Shepard, Respondent, (2012)
... which held that a farm tractor is not a dangerous instrumentality as a matter of law. In so holding...
- Florida Supreme Court
- Pettit v. Clarion Technologies, (Ohio 2005)
To establish an employer intentional tort, an employee must demonstrate the following: "(1) knowledge by the employer of the existence of a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition within its business operation; (2) knowledge by the employer that if the employee is subjected by his employment to such dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition, then harm to the employee will be a substantial certainty; and (3) that the employer, under such circumstances, and with such knowledge, did act to require the employee to continue to perform the dangerous task.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Florida Supreme Court Finds No Federal Preemption Over Claims Against Aircraft Lessors.
... negligent operation of the airplane, a "dangerous instrumentality" under Florida law. . Aerolease ne...
- Mondaq Business Briefing
- Nbr. 2011, January 2011
- Tucker v. Huff, (Ohio 2008)
Cause of action for employer intentional tort; Summary judgment in favor of employer and sole shareholder of the company; Employee could not show evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether employer had knowledge that if the employee was subjected by his employment to a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition, then harm to the employee would be a substantial certainty as required by Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108 Employee could not pierce the corporate veil in order to hold sole shareholder personally liable for his injuries ; Employee could not demonstrate that owner/mechanic was personally liable to his failure to properly repair/maintain employee’s truck
- Ohio Supreme Court