(same); Durham v. South State, Inc., 2010 WL 1657054 (N.J.Super.A.D.2010) (same); Hamberg v. Sandia Corp., 143 N.M. 601, 179 P.3d 1209 (2008) (same); Smith v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 289 A.D.2d 48, 734 N.Y.S.2d 127 (2001) (same); Spore v. Camac Veneer, Inc., 62 Or.App. 495, 661 P.2d 582 (1983) (same); English v. Lehigh County Auth., 286 Pa.Super. 312, 428 A.2d 1343 (1981) (same); Urena v. Theta Products, Inc., 899 A.2d 449 (R.I.2006) (same); Goodman v. Sioux Steel Co., 475 N.W.2d 563 (S.D.1991) (same); Wingfoot Enterprises v. Alvarado, 111 S.W.3d 134 (Tex.2003) (same); Pace v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 905 P.2d 308 (Utah App. 1995) (same); Simmons v. Atlas Vac Machine Co., 493 F.Supp. 1082 (E.D.Wis.1980) (same). 6 . See Stuyvesant Corp. v. Waterhouse, 74 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1954) (<HOLDING>); A.J. Johnson Paving Co. v. Industrial Comm’n,
holding that the trial court erred by denying plaintiffs request to instruct the jury on all its claims and to submit a special verdict form and by instead requiring the plaintiff to elect between its statutory antitrust claim and its common law tort claims to be submitted to the jury holding that where the government agrees to furnish equipment to the contractor there is an implied warranty that suchequipment will be suitable for its intended use holding nature of motion is determined by its substance not its title holding that a contract was implied where the special employer allowed the claimant to come onto its premises use its equipment and participate in its show under its direction holding that a lent employees acceptance of his special employment status could be implied from his acquiescence to the control and direction of the special employer