Mackey v. Dorsey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district · 21 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Broadwater v. Dorsey · 60 F. Supp. 2d 496 - McGuiness v. Brink's Inc.

2. “The statute does not define “unattended”, but a reasonable interpretation is that it means without any one present who is competent to prevent any of the probable dangers to the public. These dangers are different under different circumstances. A car parked on the brow of a hill ... where one danger is that it can start by the force of gravity, requires attendance by one competent to stop it. On the other hand, where a car is not parked on a perceptible grade, the danger to be guarded against is the interposition of some human agency such as a mischievous child or a prospective thief. In such a case, the attendant would not have to be familiar with the mechanism or the operation of an automobile or the brakes.... The statute does not require a guarantee that a car cannot move or be moved to the damage of the public, but only that the reasonable precaution mentioned be taken. The person in charge of the car complies, so far as not leaving the car unattended, when he leaves with it a person who may be ordinarily capable of coping with the kind of emergencies that may be expected to arise under the particular circumstances of the case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 122 Md. App. 364 - May v. Giant Food, Inc.

3. “Appellants ... rely on the theory, not entirely different from their agency theory, that Cooper’s negligence may be imputed to Dorsey. In a leading case on imputed negligence, Smith v. Branscome, 251 Md. 582, 595 , 248 A.2d 455 ... (1968), the Court of Appeals summarized this theory as follows: [U]nder Maryland tort law, an owner because of his presumed control over his car when present though not physically handling the wheel, may be held liable in the event of a collision, to the same extent as if he were manually controlling or operating the vehicle. In such a case the negligence of the driver is said to be imputed to the owner. However, an agency relationship is not necessary to be shown, for the failure of the owner, who is present, to exercise his presumed control makes him liable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Md. App. 614 - Bowser v. Resh