green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
28.1 score
“subsection (b) comes into play as long as the party who owes the plaintiff a duty of care has delegated to the defendant any particular part of that duty.”
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Alder v. Bayer Corp., AGFA Div.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
subsection (b) comes into play as long as the party who owes the plaintiff a duty of care has delegated to the defendant any particular part of that duty.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cory v. Stewart
(2×)
Gv’t of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., 555 U.S. 271 , 274 n.1 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 46 Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (internal quotation marks omitted). 47 Benton-Volvo-Metairie, Inc., 479 F.2d at 138 (“[D]ecid[ing] whether the granting of summary judgment was correct based on the evidence presented . . . is a very complex and difficult task.”). 48 Nat’l Hygienics, Inc., 707 F.2d at 189 . 49 Id. 12 Case: 19-10622 Document: 94-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/29/2024 No. 19-10622 “[V]iewing the record in the light most favorable to [plaintiff],” we denied summary judgment. 50…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Carter v. St. Tammany Parish School Board
Gray v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters Loc. 540, 736 F.2d 1055, 1055 (5th Cir. 1984) (citing DelCostello v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Piazza v. Young
Corp., 736 F.2d 1055, 1061 (5th Cir. 1984) (improper safety inspections as evidence of Section 324A negligence). 35 Gilmartin argues that “alleged conduct of nonfeasance, the omission of an act, cannot result in imposition of personal liability on a corporate officer.” Shay v. Flight C Helicopter Servs., 822 A.2d 1, 18 (Pa. Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eileen Bloom v. Casella Construction, Inc.
Co., 899 S.W.2d 129, 131 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (explaining that “the apparent rationale behind § 324A(b)” is that it “is reasonable to place liability upon a party who has clearly undertaken primary responsibility for services upon which third parties depend”); Canipe v. National Loss Control Service Corp., 736 F.2d 1055, 1062-63 (5th Cir. 1984) (stating that “[s]ubsection (b) comes into play as long as the party who owes the plaintiff a duty of care has delegated to the defendant any particular part of that duty”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc.
(2×)
Inc. (D.Del. 1983) 556 F.Supp. 716, 721 [under § 324A(b), a plaintiff must establish that the one who undertook a duty to inspect supplanted and not merely supplemented another’s duty to inspect]; Heinrich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (D.Md. 1982) 532 F.Supp. 1348, 1355 [under § 324A(b), liability “arises in the workplace setting only if the actor’s undertaking was intended to be in lieu of, rather than a supplement to, the employer’s own duty of care to the employees”] (Heinrich); Blessing v. United States (E.D.Pa. 1978) 447 F.Supp. 1160, 1194 [United States would be liable only …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peredia v. HR Mobile Servs., Inc.
Inc. (D.Del. 1983) 556 F.Supp. 716 , 721 [under *172 § 324A(b), a plaintiff must establish that the one who undertook a duty to inspect supplanted and not merely supplemented another's duty to inspect]; Heinrich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (D.Md. 1982) 532 F.Supp. 1348 , 1355 [under § 324A(b), liability "arises in the workplace setting only if the actor's undertaking was intended to be in lieu of, rather than a supplement to, the employer's own duty of care to the employees"] ( Heinrich ); Blessing v. United States (E.D.Pa. 1978) 447 F.Supp. 1160 , 1194 [United States would be liable only …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bjerke v. Johnson
(2×)
Corp., 736 F.2d 1055, 1062 (5th Cir.1984) (This subsection [324A(a)J requires some change in conditions that increases the risk of harm to the plaintiff over the level of risk that existed before the defendant became involved.); Deines v. Vermeer Mfg.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bujol v. Entergy Services, Inc.
(3×)
This section requires "some change in conditions that increases the risk of harm to the plaintiff over the level of risk that existed before the defendant became involved." Canipe v. Nat'l Loss Control Serv., 736 F.2d 1055, 1062 (5th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Butler v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
Corp., 736 F.2d 1055, 1062 (5th Cir. 1984); Patton v. Simone, 626 A.2d 844, 850-51 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blewitt v. Man Roland, Inc.
Id., citing Canipe v. National Loss Control Service Corp., 736 F.2d 1055, 1062 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1191 , 105 S.Ct. 965 , 83 L.Ed.2d 969 (1985), Patentas v. United States, 687 F.2d 707, 717 (3d Cir.1982), Raymer v. United States, 660 F.2d 1136, 1143 (6th Cir.1981) and Davis v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 525 F.2d 1204, 1207 (5th Cir.1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shipe v. Chesapeake Bay Fishing Parties, Inc.
See Deines at 995 ; Canipe v. National Loss Control Service Corporation, 736 F.2d 1055, 1062-3 (5th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Deines v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co.
Corp., 736 F.2d at 1062-63 (emphasis added); see also Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 232 Kan. at 26 , 651 P.2d at 597 (assumption of part of City’s duty permits application of § 324A(b)); cf. Blessing v. United States, 447 F.Supp. 1160, 1188-89 (E.D.Pa.1978) (defendant must “supplant” other party’s duty).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Seay v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
(2×)
Johnson v. Abbe Engineering Company, 749 F.2d 1131, 1132 (5th Cir.1984); Canipe v. National Loss Control Service Corporation, 736 F.2d 1055, 1059 (5th Cir.1984); City of Denton v. Van Page, 701 S.W.2d 831, 836 (Tex.1986); Bernard Johnson, Inc. v. Continental Constructors, Inc., 630 S.W.2d 365, 374 (Tex.App.—Austin 1982, writ ref d n.r.e.); and RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 324A comment a (1965).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Margrave v. British Airways
Although courts are generally disposed to deny applications for summary judgment whenever a dispute concerning proximate cause has been identified, see, e.g., Canipe v. National Loss Control, 736 F.2d 1055, 1062 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1191 , 105 S.Ct. 965 , 83 L.Ed.2d 969 (1985), the Second Circuit has recognized that questions of proximate cause are subject to summary judgment in appropriate cases.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Viola Moody (84-5479), George D. Bawgus (84-5695) v. United States of America
Canipe v. National Loss Control Service Corp., 736 F.2d 1055, 1060 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 965 , 83 L.Ed.2d 969 (1985) (Restatement (Second) Torts § 324A).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Company, a Corporation
(5×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Except for the Ninth Circuit, every federal court of appeals has held that DelCostello should be applied retroactively. 15 Smith, 747 F.2d at 375 (6th Cir.) (en banc); Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 362 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 594 , 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); Graves, 736 F.2d at 822 (1st Cir.); Gray, 736 F.2d at 1055 (5th Cir.); Welyczko, 733 F.2d at 241 (2d Cir.); Murray, 723 F.2d at 1148 (4th Cir.); Lincoln, 723 F.2d at 630 (8th Cir.); Rogers, 720 F.2d at 1250 (11th Cir.); Perez, 718 F.2d at 588 (3d Cir.); Storck v. Teamsters, 712 F.2d 1194 , 1196 (7th C…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Manville Forest Products Corp.
Seven months later, in Gray v. Meat Cutters Local 540, 736 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.1984), the court stated: “Edwards established that DelCostello is to be applied retroactively to all cases in our circuit.” Id. at 1055 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santillo v. Chambersburg Engineering Co.
Canipe v. National Loss Control Service Corp., 736 F.2d 1055, 1062 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 965 , 83 L.Ed.2d 969 (1985); Patentas, 687 F.2d at 717 ; Raymer v. United States, 660 F.2d 1136, 1143 (6th Cir.1981); Davis v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 525 F.2d 1204, 1207 (5th Cir.1976).
examined
Cited "see"
Willis v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.
(4×)
See generally also Canipe v. National Loss Control Service Corp., 736 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.1984) (reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant in a negligence action brought (under Tennessee law) by an injured machine operator against the corporation which had contracted with the machine operator's employer to provide safety inspections and related accident-prevention services at the plant where the machine operator worked, because, inter alia, of the existence of genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant corporation performed its undertaking negli…
discussed
Cited "see"
Willis v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.
(2×)
See generally also Canipe v. National Loss Control Service Corp., 736 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.1984) (reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant in a negligence action brought (under Tennessee law) by an injured machine operator against the corporation which had contracted with the machine operator's employer to provide safety inspections and related accident-prevention services at the plant where the machine operator worked, because, inter alia, of the existence of genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant corporation performed its undertaking negli…
cited
Cited "see"
Hutcherson v. Progressive Corporation
See Canipe v. National Loss Control Service Corp., 736 F.2d 1055, 1063 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1191 , 105 S.Ct. 965 , 83 L.Ed.2d 969 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Hutcherson v. Progressive Corp.
See Canipe v. National Loss Control Service Corp., 736 F.2d 1055, 1063 (5th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 469 U.S. 1191 , 105 S.Ct. 965 , 83 L.Ed.2d 969 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gary Smith v. Atlantic Richfield Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation and Anaconda Minerals Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
(2×)
See, Canipe v. National Loss Control Service Corp., 736 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Geoffrey E. Landahl v. Ppg Industries, Inc., and Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, Local 579
See Gray v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Local 540, 736 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.1984) (DelCostello to be applied retroactively in all cases); Graves v. Smith’s Transfer Corp., supra, 736 F.2d 819 (1st Cir.); Scott v. Local 863, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, supra, 725 F.2d 226 (3rd Cir.); Murray v. Branch Motor Express Co., supra, 723 F.2d 1146 (4th Cir.); Rodman v. Hensley, 740 F.2d 665 (8th Cir.1984); Lincoln v. Machinists and Aerospace Workers, supra, 723 F.2d 627 (8th Cir.); Rogers v. Lockheed Georgia Co., supra, 720 F.2d 1247 (11th Cir.); Edwards v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., supra, 720 …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Linda Mulligan v. Francis Hazard
See also Gray v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters Local 540, 736 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pink GRAY and L.C. Robinson, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS LOCAL 540 and Safeway Stores, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
v.
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS LOCAL 540 and Safeway Stores, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
84-1096.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 20, 1984.
Les Weisbrod, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants., Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, G. William Baab, Dallas, Tex., for Amalgamated Meat Cutters Local 540., Clark, West, Keller, Butler & Ellis, Allen Butler, Michael P. Maslanka, Dallas, Tex., for Safeway Stores.
Tate, Higginbotham, Davis.
Cited by 12 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of their suit because of the running of the statute of limitations. DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983) established a six-month limitations period for employees’ suits against an employer and a union under section 301 of the LMRA. Plaintiffs argue that Edwards v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 720 F.2d 857 (5th Cir.1983) established that the retroactivity of DelCostello is to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and that the circumstances of this case militate against retroactive application. Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Edwards, however, is incorrect. Edwards established that DelCostello is to be applied retroactively to all cases in our circuit. See Farr v. H.K. Porter, Inc., 727 F.2d 502, 505 (5th Cir.1984); Edwards, 720 F.2d at 859 (“The sole issue we must decide is whether DelCostello applies retroactively. We hold that it does____”).
Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is AFFIRMED.