Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Halifax Paving, Inc. v. SCOTT & JOBALIA CONST. CO.green2 sentences2015Co., 565 So. 2d 1346, 1347 (Fla. 1990) (citation omitted and emphasis added). 2015Co., 565 So.2d 1346, 1347 (Fla.1990) (citation omitted and emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Buzan v. Mercy Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences1989Also unresolved on this record is the related question whether bandaging, even if performed in the physician's presence, is a duty "involving professional skill, which would render the actor subject to the surgeon's control," or a ministerial service "which would not implicate the borrowed servant doctrine." Vargas v. Dulzaides, 520 So.2d 306, 307 (Fla. 3d DCA) (citation omitted), review dismissed, 528 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 1988); see Buzan v. Mercy Hospital, Inc., 203 So.2d at 12 . 1988Id. | 1 | 2 |
Crawford v. Florida Steel Corp.green1 sentence2025Crawford v. Fla. Steel Corp., 478 So. 2d 855, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see also Shelby Mut. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Greg's Crane Service, Inc.green1 sentence2025We also affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee on the borrowed servant doctrine. “[T]he party alleging a special employee defense has a substantial burden to overcome the presumption of continuing general employment 2 . . . .” Smith v. Greg’s Crane Serv., Inc., 576 So. 2d 814, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Massey v. Heinegreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Perkins, 382 So.2d at 335 (citing cases and stating that courts in other jurisdictions have unanimously held that the hospital, rather than the doctor, is liable in a post-surgical setting); Massey v. Heine, 497 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Ky.1973) (explaining that the borrowed servant principle does not apply when physician did not select the nurse, supervise the injection, and was not present when nurse administered post-operative injection); Clemente v. Roth, 2004 WL 3953814 (D. 2006See, e.g., Perkins, 382 So.2d at 335 (citing cases and stating that courts in other jurisdictions have unanimously held that the hospital, rather than the doctor, is liable in a post-surgical setting); Massey v. Heine, 497 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Ky.1973) (explaining that the borrowed servant principle does not apply when physician did not select the nurse, supervise the injection, and was not present when nurse administered post-operative injection); Clemente v. Roth, 2004 WL 3953814 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Murden v. Miami Poultry & Egg Co.green2 sentences2006Although the trial court erred when it gave the borrowed servant instruction, any error was harmless. "[T]he judgment should not be reversed because of the erroneous charges because the rule is well settled that where evidence in a law case discloses no liability, there can be no recovery and a verdict for the defendant in such cases must stand." Bryant, 405 So.2d at 1343 (quoting Murden v. Miami Poultry & Egg Co., 113 Fla. 870 , 152 So. 714, 716 (1934)). 2006Although the trial court erred when it gave the borrowed servant instruction, any error was harmless. "[T]he judgment should not be reversed because of the erroneous charges because the rule is well settled that where evidence in a law case discloses no liability, there can be no recovery and a verdict for the defendant in such cases must stand." Bryant, 405 So.2d at 1343 (quoting Murden v. Miami Poultry & Egg Co., 113 Fla. 870 , 152 So. 714, 716 (1934)). | 1 | 1 |
Derogatis v. Fawcett Memorial Hosp.green1 sentence2006See, e.g., Derogatis, 892 So.2d at 1081 (citing § 440.11(2), Fla. Stat. (2000); Horn, 862 So.2d at 939-40 ; Sagarino, 644 So.2d at 165 ) (advising that "[a] special employer may be immune from suit on the basis of the common law special employment relationship that is premised on the borrowed-employee doctrine or on the basis of the statutory special employment relationship"). | 1 | 1 |
Butler-Tulio v. Scrogginsgreen2 sentences2006Butler-Tulio v. Scroggins, 139 Md.App. 122 , 774 A.2d 1209, 1229 (2001). 2006Butler-Tulio v. Scroggins, 139 Md.App. 122 , 774 A.2d 1209, 1229 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Variety Children's Hosp., Inc. v. Perkinsgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Perkins, 382 So.2d at 335 (citing cases and stating that courts in other jurisdictions have unanimously held that the hospital, rather than the doctor, is liable in a post-surgical setting); Massey v. Heine, 497 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Ky.1973) (explaining that the borrowed servant principle does not apply when physician did not select the nurse, supervise the injection, and was not present when nurse administered post-operative injection); Clemente v. Roth, 2004 WL 3953814 (D. 2006In Perkins , the Third District held that the borrowed servant doctrine did not apply as a matter of law in a post-operative setting. 382 So.2d at 334 . | 1 | 1 |
Vargas v. Dulzaidesgreen1 sentence1989Also unresolved on this record is the related question whether bandaging, even if performed in the physician's presence, is a duty "involving professional skill, which would render the actor subject to the surgeon's control," or a ministerial service "which would not implicate the borrowed servant doctrine." Vargas v. Dulzaides, 520 So.2d 306, 307 (Fla. 3d DCA) (citation omitted), review dismissed, 528 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 1988); see Buzan v. Mercy Hospital, Inc., 203 So.2d at 12 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Doyle
green
2 sentences1995Similarly, in Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Doyle, 123 Fla. 695 , 167 So. 358 (1936), affirmed, 128 Fla. 707 , 175 So. 515 (1937), the case which seemed to have developed the borrowed servant doctrine, the court held that the record supported a jury finding. 1995Similarly, in Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Doyle, 123 Fla. 695 , 167 So. 358 (1936), affirmed, 128 Fla. 707 , 175 So. 515 (1937), the case which seemed to have developed the borrowed servant doctrine, the court held that the record supported a jury finding. | 3 | 1989–1995 |
Sagarino v. Marriott Corp.
green
2 sentences2006Sagarino, 644 So.2d at 165 (citing Shelby Mut. 1995In this latter instance, the employee is known as a special employee, or sometimes a borrowed servant. [2] See also Sagarino v. Marriott Corp., 644 So.2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). [3] Kurfess v. Frohlick Crane Service, Inc., 543 P.2d 1304 (Colo. App. 1975) demonstrates the reasoning applied in those cases in which the courts refuse to apply the borrowed servant doctrine and find that the crane company is the crane operator's employer. | 2 | 1995–2006 |
Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Doyle
green
2 sentences1995Similarly, in Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Doyle, 123 Fla. 695 , 167 So. 358 (1936), affirmed, 128 Fla. 707 , 175 So. 515 (1937), the case which seemed to have developed the borrowed servant doctrine, the court held that the record supported a jury finding. 1995Similarly, in Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Doyle, 123 Fla. 695 , 167 So. 358 (1936), affirmed, 128 Fla. 707 , 175 So. 515 (1937), the case which seemed to have developed the borrowed servant doctrine, the court held that the record supported a jury finding. | 2 | 1994–1995 |
Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1991In a subsequent decision, Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co., 246 So.2d 98 (Fla. 1971), the supreme court further limited the operation of the borrowed servant doctrine and recognized the presumption of continuing general employment. 1990In Shelby Mutual Insurance Company v. Aetna Insurance Company, 246 So.2d 98 (Fla.1971), the Florida Supreme Court stated the three factors determining whether the borrowed servant doctrine applied, to-wit: (1) a contract of hire, either express or implied, with a special employer, (2) work being done that was essentially that of the special employer, and (3) that the special employer had the right to control the details of the work. | 2 | 1990–1991 |
Horn v. Tandem Health Care of Florida, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006See, e.g., Derogatis, 892 So.2d at 1081 (citing § 440.11(2), Fla. Stat. (2000); Horn, 862 So.2d at 939-40 ; Sagarino, 644 So.2d at 165 ) (advising that "[a] special employer may be immune from suit on the basis of the common law special employment relationship that is premised on the borrowed-employee doctrine or on the basis of the statutory special employment relationship"). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Bryant v. Fiadini
green
1 sentence2006Although the trial court erred when it gave the borrowed servant instruction, any error was harmless. "[T]he judgment should not be reversed because of the erroneous charges because the rule is well settled that where evidence in a law case discloses no liability, there can be no recovery and a verdict for the defendant in such cases must stand." Bryant, 405 So.2d at 1343 (quoting Murden v. Miami Poultry & Egg Co., 113 Fla. 870 , 152 So. 714, 716 (1934)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Parker v. Joe Lujan Enterprises, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995For the reasoning applied in those cases in which the crane operator is found to be a borrowed employee, see Parker v. Joe Lujan Enterprises, Inc., 848 F.2d 118 (9th Cir.1988) and Walters v. Metropolitan Erection Co., 644 So.2d 1143 (La. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Walters v. Metropolitan Erection Co.
green
1 sentence1995For the reasoning applied in those cases in which the crane operator is found to be a borrowed employee, see Parker v. Joe Lujan Enterprises, Inc., 848 F.2d 118 (9th Cir.1988) and Walters v. Metropolitan Erection Co., 644 So.2d 1143 (La. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Stuyvesant Corp. v. Waterhouse
green
1 sentence1991The supreme court, in affirming a circuit court decision that the claimant was a special employee of Lombardy, described the borrowed servant doctrine in compensation cases, as: "[M]ore of a theory than a fact ... [,] the doctrine itself is without substantial foundation and has tended to confuse rather than clarify solutions to existing situations." Id. at 559 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hamilton v. Shell Oil Company
green
1 sentence1991Hamilton v. Shell Oil Co., 215 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), illustrates the doctrinal development. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Rumsey v. Eastern Distribution, Inc.
green
1 sentence1989In Rumsey v. Eastern Distribution, Inc., 445 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) a temporary employee received Workers’ Compensation benefits from the lending employer and also sued the borrowing employer in tort. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Fortson v. McNamara
neutral
1 sentence1988Because the perfusionist in the instant case was not certified, we do not reach the question of whether a certified perfusionist would be considered a licensed professional and, therefore, not within the borrowed servant doctrine as per Fortson v. McNamara, 508 So.2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Thornton v. PAKTANK FLA., INC.
green
1 sentence1984Rumsey urges that the case of Thornton v. Paktank Florida, Inc., 409 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), is controlling and requires reversal of this case. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.