Morris v. Ortiz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 56 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . [W] here pupils make potentially dangerous instrumentalities in class, the teacher may have a duty to instruct with respect thereto. What constitutes proper supervision depends largely upon the circumstances attending the event. Thus, the fact that supervisory personnel present when an accident occurs could conceivably have prevented its occurrence does not necessarily render the school agency liable if the supervisory personnel was competent and acted reasonably under all the circumstances. The fact that an injury occurs while a pupil is on an errand or is performing a task on specific directions of the teacher does not necessarily establish negligent supervision, since it is the duty of the teacher, as a reasonable and prudent person, to guard only against such accidents as are reasonably foreseeable. There is no liability predicated on lack or insufficiency of supervision where the event in connection with which the injury occurred was not reasonably foreseeable. . . . The courts frequently state that a teacher is not required to anticipate the myriad of unexpected acts which occur daily in and about school, to guard against all dangers inherent in the rashness of children, or to watch all movements of children. Where injury results from an unforeseen, sudden, impulsive, or spontaneous act of another pupil, such act has been held the intervening proximate cause of the injury notwithstanding lack, or possible inadequacy, of supervision. Thus, it has been said that fa”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 308 Pa. Super. 555 - Simonetti v. School District of Philadelphia · 17 Ariz. App. 120 - City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska

2. ““An examination of the cases and commentaries discloses that three basic duties arise from the teacher-student relationship: (1) the duty to supervise; (2) the duty to exercise good judgment; and (3) the duty to instruct as to correct procedures, particularly (but not exclusively) when potentially hazardous conditions or instrumentalities are present. These basic duties must co-exist with the whole purpose for the teacher-student relationship, viz. education.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 245 Pa. Super. 139 - Bottorf v. Waltz

3. ““Such gossamer speculation is the stuff from which dreams are made and not the foundation stone for an action in negligence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Segerman v. Jones