Hickey v. . Taaffe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 95 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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The hands of the plaintiff, in any thing which ho had to do or was doing about the machine, would not come within nine inches of the cogs where he was injured. It was not needful to instruct him that the cogs were dangerous, because that was obvious. lie could see as well as anybody that, if Ms fingers got into the cogs, they would be crushed into pieces. lie was not injured because he die! not know that the cogs were dangerous, hut the injury happened because he slipped and fell, and instinctively threw out his hand to recover himself. * * * There is no rule of law that a minor may not be employed about a dangerous machine, and the simple fact that a machine is dangerous does not make an employer liable for an injury received by a minor employed upon such machines. All the law requires is that the minor should, be properly instructed as to the danger to which he is exposed; and, if he is injured because he has not received such instruction, then, as a general rule, the employer may he held responsible. But where the minor is familiar with the machine, and its character and operation are obvious, and he is aware of and fully appreciates the danger to be apprehended from working the machine, the fact that he is a minor docs not alter the general rule that the employe takes upon himself the risks which are patent and incident to the employment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. E. S. Higgins Carpet Co. v. O'Keefe

2. ““ Assuming the plaintiff’s statements in this case to be true,— that she had no instructions as to the danger of the machine, and that she had never worked at any machinery before,—if, under such circumstances, this accident had happened within a short time of her employment, and because of her unfamiliarity with, and lack of appreciation of the dangers attendant upon the working of, the machine, the defendant may well have been held liable for the damages sustained by her on account of such ignorance.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Latorre v. Stamping Co.