115 Ind. App. 365 - Fields v. Hahn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘A statute of the State of Indiana in force at the time of this accident provides in effect that when traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of the vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be, so to yield to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger, but no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. “ ‘So in this case if you find from the evidence that the defendant was operating a motor bus on and along 4th Avenue in the City of Gary, Indiana, and that the plaintiff was a pedestrian crossing said 4th Avenue at a crosswalk at a place where traffic control signals were not then in place or in operation, and that the plaintiff was within the half of 4th Avenue upon which the defendant’s motor bus was approaching, or that the plaintiff was so closely approaching the half of said 4th Avenue upon which the defendant’s motor bus was approaching from the opposite half of 4th Avenue, and upon a crosswalk across the same where no traffic control signals were then in place or in operation, so as to be in danger, then and under such state of facts, if you find such facts to have existed under the evi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gary Railways, Inc. v. Dillon

2. ““The test of contributory negligence, like that of negligence, is whether ordinary care was exercised under the circumstancs. Hedgecock v. Orlosky, 1942, 220 Ind. 390 , 44 N.E.2d 93 . The degree of care required is always the care which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the same or similar'circumstances, and whether such care has been exercised in a given casé is a question of fact for the jury to determine. Jones v. Cary, 1941, 219 Ind. 268 , 37 N.E.2d 944 , Harker v. Gruhl, 1916, 62 Ind. App. 177 , 111 N.E. 457, 459 . In the case last cited it is said: ‘It would have been error for the court to say as a matter of law that ordinary care required appellee to look and listen constantly, and it was also error to instruct the jury that ordinary prudence did not require him to do so.’ As a matter of law, a pedestrian who is lawfully using a public thoroughfare need not be constantly looking or listening to ascertain whether automobiles are approaching under the penalty that if he fails to do so and is injured his failure conclusively charges him with negligence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 Ind. App. 566 - Frankfort v. Owens

3. ““The test of contributory negligence, like that of negligence, is whether ordinary care was exercised under the circumstances. Hedgecock v. Orlosky (1942), 220 Ind. 390 , 44 N. E. 2d 93 . The degree of care required is always the care which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances, and whether such care has been exercised in a given case is a question of fact for the jury to determine. Jones v. Cary (1941), 219 Ind. 268 , 37 N. E. 2d 944 ; Harker v. Gruhl (1916), 62 Ind. App. 177 , 111 N. E. 457 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McAllister v. Butler