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.
11 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allen Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.green2 sentences2025July 14, 2021)] (citing City of Columbus [v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 432 (2002)]; (2) the similar principle that courts have a "tendency . . . to construe the safety exception broadly[,]" id. (citing VRC LLC [v. City of Dallas, 460 F.3d 607, 612 (5th Cir. 2006)]); (3) the fact that the purpose of the FAAAA is to 9 "regulat[e] economic aspects of the trucking industry by, for example, enacting tariffs, price regulations, and other similar laws[,]" id. (quoting Miller, 976 F.3d at 1026 ); and (4) the fact that the purpose behind the Safety Exception is to "not restrict t 2025July 14, 2021)] (citing City of Columbus [v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 432 (2002)]; (2) the similar principle that courts have a "tendency . . . to construe the safety exception broadly[,]" id. (citing VRC LLC [v. City of Dallas, 460 F.3d 607, 612 (5th Cir. 2006)]); (3) the fact that the purpose of the FAAAA is to 9 "regulat[e] economic aspects of the trucking industry by, for example, enacting tariffs, price regulations, and other similar laws[,]" id. (quoting Miller, 976 F.3d at 1026 ); and (4) the fact that the purpose behind the Safety Exception is to "not restrict t | 1 | 1 |
Jean Charles, Jr., etc. v. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc., etc.green1 sentence2025"Express preemption exists where a federal statute explicitly preempts state law." Charles v. S. Baptist Hosp. of Fla., Inc., 209 So. 3d 1199, 1212 (Fla. 2017) (quoting W. | 1 | 1 |
Vrc LLC v. City of Dallas Don Bearden Marcus Currie Does 1-30, City of Dallasgreen2 sentences2025July 14, 2021)] (citing City of Columbus [v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 432 (2002)]; (2) the similar principle that courts have a "tendency . . . to construe the safety exception broadly[,]" id. (citing VRC LLC [v. City of Dallas, 460 F.3d 607, 612 (5th Cir. 2006)]); (3) the fact that the purpose of the FAAAA is to 9 "regulat[e] economic aspects of the trucking industry by, for example, enacting tariffs, price regulations, and other similar laws[,]" id. (quoting Miller, 976 F.3d at 1026 ); and (4) the fact that the purpose behind the Safety Exception is to "not restrict t 2025July 14, 2021)] (citing City of Columbus [v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 432 (2002)]; (2) the similar principle that courts have a "tendency . . . to construe the safety exception broadly[,]" id. (citing VRC LLC [v. City of Dallas, 460 F.3d 607, 612 (5th Cir. 2006)]); (3) the fact that the purpose of the FAAAA is to 9 "regulat[e] economic aspects of the trucking industry by, for example, enacting tariffs, price regulations, and other similar laws[,]" id. (quoting Miller, 976 F.3d at 1026 ); and (4) the fact that the purpose behind the Safety Exception is to "not restrict t | 1 | 1 |
Michael Anthony Conage v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025"But in the absence of controlling authority, th[is] 10 Court looks to the plain language of the safety exception, which does not require a 'direct' connection to motor vehicles to be applicable." Hawkins, 735 F. Supp. 3d at 940; see also DeSantis v. Dream Defenders, 389 So. 3d 413 , 422 (Fla. 2024) ("The law consists not of what the Legislature 'appears to have intended,' but what the words of its duly enacted statutes, in their context, mean to the ordinary speakers of the language who elected it."); Ripple, 385 So. 3d at 1027 (Fla. 2024) ("[T]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language 2025"But in the absence of controlling authority, th[is] 10 Court looks to the plain language of the safety exception, which does not require a 'direct' connection to motor vehicles to be applicable." Hawkins, 735 F. Supp. 3d at 940; see also DeSantis v. Dream Defenders, 389 So. 3d 413 , 422 (Fla. 2024) ("The law consists not of what the Legislature 'appears to have intended,' but what the words of its duly enacted statutes, in their context, mean to the ordinary speakers of the language who elected it."); Ripple, 385 So. 3d at 1027 (Fla. 2024) ("[T]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language | 1 | 1 |
City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Service, Inc.green2 sentences2025July 14, 2021)] (citing City of Columbus [v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 432 (2002)]; (2) the similar principle that courts have a "tendency . . . to construe the safety exception broadly[,]" id. (citing VRC LLC [v. City of Dallas, 460 F.3d 607, 612 (5th Cir. 2006)]); (3) the fact that the purpose of the FAAAA is to 9 "regulat[e] economic aspects of the trucking industry by, for example, enacting tariffs, price regulations, and other similar laws[,]" id. (quoting Miller, 976 F.3d at 1026 ); and (4) the fact that the purpose behind the Safety Exception is to "not restrict t 2025July 14, 2021)] (citing City of Columbus [v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 432 (2002)]; (2) the similar principle that courts have a "tendency . . . to construe the safety exception broadly[,]" id. (citing VRC LLC [v. City of Dallas, 460 F.3d 607, 612 (5th Cir. 2006)]); (3) the fact that the purpose of the FAAAA is to 9 "regulat[e] economic aspects of the trucking industry by, for example, enacting tariffs, price regulations, and other similar laws[,]" id. (quoting Miller, 976 F.3d at 1026 ); and (4) the fact that the purpose behind the Safety Exception is to "not restrict t | 1 | 1 |
Ron DeSantis, Governor v. Dream Defendersgreen2 sentences2025"But in the absence of controlling authority, th[is] 10 Court looks to the plain language of the safety exception, which does not require a 'direct' connection to motor vehicles to be applicable." Hawkins, 735 F. Supp. 3d at 940; see also DeSantis v. Dream Defenders, 389 So. 3d 413 , 422 (Fla. 2024) ("The law consists not of what the Legislature 'appears to have intended,' but what the words of its duly enacted statutes, in their context, mean to the ordinary speakers of the language who elected it."); Ripple, 385 So. 3d at 1027 (Fla. 2024) ("[T]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language 2025"But in the absence of controlling authority, th[is] 10 Court looks to the plain language of the safety exception, which does not require a 'direct' connection to motor vehicles to be applicable." Hawkins, 735 F. Supp. 3d at 940; see also DeSantis v. Dream Defenders, 389 So. 3d 413 , 422 (Fla. 2024) ("The law consists not of what the Legislature 'appears to have intended,' but what the words of its duly enacted statutes, in their context, mean to the ordinary speakers of the language who elected it."); Ripple, 385 So. 3d at 1027 (Fla. 2024) ("[T]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language | 1 | 1 |
Jennifer Ripple, etc. v. CBS Corporationgreen2 sentences2025"But in the absence of controlling authority, th[is] 10 Court looks to the plain language of the safety exception, which does not require a 'direct' connection to motor vehicles to be applicable." Hawkins, 735 F. Supp. 3d at 940; see also DeSantis v. Dream Defenders, 389 So. 3d 413 , 422 (Fla. 2024) ("The law consists not of what the Legislature 'appears to have intended,' but what the words of its duly enacted statutes, in their context, mean to the ordinary speakers of the language who elected it."); Ripple, 385 So. 3d at 1027 (Fla. 2024) ("[T]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language 2025"But in the absence of controlling authority, th[is] 10 Court looks to the plain language of the safety exception, which does not require a 'direct' connection to motor vehicles to be applicable." Hawkins, 735 F. Supp. 3d at 940; see also DeSantis v. Dream Defenders, 389 So. 3d 413 , 422 (Fla. 2024) ("The law consists not of what the Legislature 'appears to have intended,' but what the words of its duly enacted statutes, in their context, mean to the ordinary speakers of the language who elected it."); Ripple, 385 So. 3d at 1027 (Fla. 2024) ("[T]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language | 1 | 1 |
California Tow Truck Ass'n v. City & County of San Franciscogreen1 sentence2025See Miller, 976 F.3d at 1026 ; Cal. Tow Truck Ass'n v. City & County of S.F., 807 F.3d 1008, 1022 (9th Cir. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Southern Coatings, Inc.green1 sentence2010See Lopez v. S. Coatings, Inc., 580 So.2d 864, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Ashby Div. of Consol. | 1 | 1 |
Caso v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Covington v. State, 728 So.2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing Caso v. State, 524 So.2d 422, 424 (Fla. 1988)). | 1 | 1 |
Covington v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Covington v. State, 728 So.2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing Caso v. State, 524 So.2d 422, 424 (Fla. 1988)). | 1 | 1 |
McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. McCauleygreen1 sentence1992See McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. McCauley, 418 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) [Section 440.09(4), Florida Statutes, precluding compensation when injury results from “willful refusal of the employee to use a safety appliance or observe a safety rule” is an affirmative defense to a claim for benefits, which is waived if not pleaded]; Sunland Hospital/State of Florida v. Garrett, 415 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (court will not consider on appeal an issue not presented with clarity during the proceedings before the deputy commissioner). | 1 | 1 |
Community Communications Co. v. City of Boulderred2 sentences1982The issue of federal preemption was recently and concisely treated in Community Communications Co. v. Boulder, ___ U.S. ___, ___-___, 102 S.Ct. 835, 846 , 70 L.Ed.2d 810, 825-826 (1982) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). [2] Rec. at 531. [3] Although not relevant to our decision, but meaningful to an understanding of notions of a "willful refusal" is the situation wherein an employer orders an employee to use a safety appliance or observe a safety rule but does not enforce the order or rule, thereby allowing workers to disregard proper safety procedures. 1982The issue of federal preemption was recently and concisely treated in Community Communications Co. v. Boulder, ___ U.S. ___, ___-___, 102 S.Ct. 835, 846 , 70 L.Ed.2d 810, 825-826 (1982) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). [2] Rec. at 531. [3] Although not relevant to our decision, but meaningful to an understanding of notions of a "willful refusal" is the situation wherein an employer orders an employee to use a safety appliance or observe a safety rule but does not enforce the order or rule, thereby allowing workers to disregard proper safety procedures. | 1 | 1 |
Tampa Drug Company v. Waitgreen1 sentence1969See Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So.2d 603 (Fla.1958), and a discussion of the reason for treating safety rules and standards as at least evidence of negligence found in City of Dothan v. Hardy, 237 Ala. 603 , 188 So. 264 (1939). | 1 | 1 |
City of Dothan v. Hardygreen2 sentences1969See Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So.2d 603 (Fla.1958), and a discussion of the reason for treating safety rules and standards as at least evidence of negligence found in City of Dothan v. Hardy, 237 Ala. 603 , 188 So. 264 (1939). 1969See Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So.2d 603 (Fla.1958), and a discussion of the reason for treating safety rules and standards as at least evidence of negligence found in City of Dothan v. Hardy, 237 Ala. 603 , 188 So. 264 (1939). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs
green
2 sentences1965Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs, Fla. 1955, 81 So.2d 503 . . 1956While substantial evidence appears in the record relating to all three of the above issues, the Deputy Commissioner, contrary to the rule which we laid down in Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs, Fla., 81 So.2d 503 , failed to make adequate findings of fact, concluding "that the first ground of controversy (that the death did not arise out of and in the course of deceased's employment) being upheld it is unnecessary to consider the other two grounds offered by the employer." The Road Department in its petition for rehearing argues that inasmuch as defenses b and c above have never been passed upo | 2 | 1956–1965 |
Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey
green
1 sentence2025This safety exception "exempts certain measures from its preemptive scope, including state laws regulating motor vehicle safety." Dan's City Used Cars, 569 U.S. at 256 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ruff v. Reliant Transportation, Inc
neutral
1 sentence2025Relevant to our analysis, one court succinctly stated that "brokers exist to arrange for the carriage of goods by motor vehicle—to put motor vehicles on the roads." Ruff v. Reliant Transp., Inc., 674 F. Supp. 3d 631 , 635 (D. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Aspen American Insurance Company v. Landstar Ranger, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025For the Estate's negligence and vicarious liability claims to fall within the FAAAA's safety exception to preemption, "(1) the negligence standard must constitute an exercise of Florida's 'safety regulatory authority,' and (2) that authority must have been exercised 'with respect to motor vehicles.' " Aspen, 65 F.4th at 1268 (quoting § 14501(c)(2)(A)). 2025For the Estate's negligence and vicarious liability claims to fall within the FAAAA's safety exception to preemption, "(1) the negligence standard must constitute an exercise of Florida's 'safety regulatory authority,' and (2) that authority must have been exercised 'with respect to motor vehicles.' " Aspen, 65 F.4th at 1268 (quoting § 14501(c)(2)(A)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Robert Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025See, e.g., Kaipust, 2025 WL 2374556 , at *4-8; Cox, 142 F.4th at 853-58 ; Miller, 976 F.3d at 1030 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sunland Hospital/State of Fla. v. Garrett
green
1 sentence1992See McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. McCauley, 418 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) [Section 440.09(4), Florida Statutes, precluding compensation when injury results from “willful refusal of the employee to use a safety appliance or observe a safety rule” is an affirmative defense to a claim for benefits, which is waived if not pleaded]; Sunland Hospital/State of Florida v. Garrett, 415 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (court will not consider on appeal an issue not presented with clarity during the proceedings before the deputy commissioner). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Carrico v. State Compensation Commissioner
neutral
1 sentence1982Va. 463 , 33 S.E.2d 281 (1945) (frequent steaming of glasses not excused). [3] Inextricably intertwined with the requirement of a willful refusal is the necessity of determining that an employee had prior notice of the order to use a safety appliance or observe a safety rule. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Smit v. Geyer Detective Agency, Inc.
green
1 sentence1982As noted by the Florida Supreme Court in Smit v. Geyer Detective Agency, Inc., 130 So.2d 882 , *1181 884 (Fla. 1961), this means that "there must be an intentional commission of an act violative of a statute with knowledge that such an act is likely to result in serious injury, or the illegal act must be done with a wanton disregard of probable consequences." See also White v. C.H. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company v. Burlison
neutral
1 sentence1979We hold merely that evidence of noncompliance can be considered by the jury which may, but need not, find negligence as a result of the failure to follow a generally recognized safety rule. * * * * * * We can assume that in promulgating the safety rule in question, the American Association of Railroads consulted with leading experts in the field of railroad highways crossings and garnered from their facts and recommendations an acceptable standard of conduct tending to preserve the safety of the highway using public, evolving standards with which an operating railroad could conform without und | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Florida Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas
green
1 sentence1979We hold merely that evidence of noncompliance can be considered by the jury which may, but need not, find negligence as a result of the failure to follow a generally recognized safety rule. * * * * * * We can assume that in promulgating the safety rule in question, the American Association of Railroads consulted with leading experts in the field of railroad highways crossings and garnered from their facts and recommendations an acceptable standard of conduct tending to preserve the safety of the highway using public, evolving standards with which an operating railroad could conform without und | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Alford v. Meyer
green
2 sentences1969In Alford, supra, the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant employer and was clearly within the class of persons sought to be protected by the Commission’s safety rule. 1969In Alford v. Meyer, 201 So.2d 489 , this court held that the violation of a safety rul.e of the Florida Industrial Commission relating to the construction of scaffolds was prima facie evidence of negligence where the plaintiff fell from a scaffold which allegedly did not meet the standards of the Commission’s safety rule. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Hardee
neutral
1 sentence1966I find, however, that the same court in a later decision in Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Hardee, 162 So.2d 704 authored by Judge Barkdull, speaking of a safety rule promulgated by the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, that the giving of an instruction to the jury that a violation of this rule constituted prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the Railroad was in error. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Philbrick Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Buff
neutral
1 sentence1954In Philbrick Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Buff, Fla., 73 So.2d 273 , the author pointed out that the question of whether the employee was willfully failing to observe a safety rule is to be determined from the facts and circumstances of the particular case. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.