105 Ga. App. 375 - Redding v. Sinclair Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2002 · most notably Robinson v. Kroger Co. (1997), 172 Ga. App. 293 - Begin v. Georgia Championship Wrestling, Inc. (1984)
35 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 80 Ga. App. 618 - Chavers v. State · Blackwell v. State · 89 Ga. App. 703 - Pilgreen v. Hanson · 83 Ga. App. 314 - Glover v. City Council of Augusta · 84 Ga. App. 195 - McMullan v. the Kroger Co.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he doctrine that a plaintiff may be excused from the otherwise required degree of care because of circumstances creating an emergency situation of peril is well recognized. From this stems the rule that a lesser degree of prudence may be sufficient to constitute ordinary care where there are circumstances causing stress or excitement. [Cit.] The doctrine is further broadened to cover situations where the plaintiff's attention is distracted by a natural and usual cause, and this is particularly true where the distraction is placed there by the defendant or where the defendant in the exercise of ordinary care should have anticipated that the distraction would occur. . . . One valid line of distinction existing in the so-called `distraction' cases concerns the cause of the distraction. Where the distraction is self-induced the plaintiff can no more take the benefit of it to excuse his lack of care for his own safety than one who creates an emergency can excuse himself because of its existence. Where the distraction comes from without, and is of such nature as naturally to divert the plaintiff, and also of such nature that the defendant might naturally have anticipated it, the result is different. [Cit.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]his is particularly true where the distraction is placed there by the defendant or where the defendant in the exercise of ordinary care should have anticipated that the distraction would occur.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.