NOONAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ALABAMA, PETITIONERS,

v.

J. C. THOMPSON, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Arleen S. Rice v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 363 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
  …its plant, to protect those who use its electricity,” but it is not an insurer against all possible accidents. Escambia County Electric Light & Power Co. v. Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167, 55 So. 83, 91 (1911). Accord, Florida Power Corporation v. Willis, 112 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1st DCA 1959). As noted by the Supreme Court of Florida long ago: “[E]ven where the highest degree of care is demanded, . . . the one from whom it is due is bound to guard only against those occurrences which can reasonably be anticipated by…
• Padgett v. W. Fla. Elec. Coop., Inc., 417 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
  …aintenance of electrical facilities and power lines may exceed recognized engineering standards is not necessarily conclusive as to the absence of negligence on the part of an electric utility. See Rice, supra, at 838; Florida Power Corp. v. Willis, 112 So. 2d 15, 17 at n. 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), cert. denied, 115 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1959). . Gibson v. Garcia, supra, 216 P. 2d at 120-121.…
• World Ins. Co. v. Kincaid, 145 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
  …sentially illegal, contrary to natural laws, opposed to common knowledge, or clearly inconsistent with other circumstances. See Catlett v. Chestnut, 107 Fla. 498, 146 So. 241, 91 A.L.R. 212. As said in Florida Power Corporation v. Willis (Fla.App.), 112 So. 2d 15: “It is a sound rule that when physical situations or matters of common knowledge point so certainly to the truth, as to leave no room for a contrary determination, based on reason and common sense, such physical situation and reasonable probabilit…

Authorities Cited

• US Cas. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1951)