Porter v. Hofman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 66 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “.. “ On the issue of wilful misconduct, the evidence is insufficient to support a determination favorable to plaintiff. The jury were instructed as follows on this issue: “ ‘The words “wilful misconduct” have a meaning in the law, additional to that which they have in common usage. If we were to use the words in their ordinary sense, they would mean simply the indulging in wrongful conduct by conscious choice. Such conduct might consist of doing something that ought not to be done or in failing to do something that ought to be done. But in order to be a basis for liability to a guest under our law, the misconduct must be something more than intentional and wrongful; it must be done under circumstances which show either knowledge that serious injury to the guest probably will result, or a wanton and reckless disregard of the possible results. “ ‘Wilful misconduct means something different.from and more than negligence, however gross the negligence may be. A guest may not recover against her host unless the conduct of the host amounted to wilful misconduct, and that means intentional, wrongful conduct, done either with knowledge that serious injury to the guest probably will result, or with a wanton and reckless disregard of the possible results. . . . “ ‘ [I] f you should find that defendant was negligent, and if you should find that she intentionally did something that was wrongful and which was a proximate cause of injury to plaintiff, still a case of willful misconduct is n”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Olson v. Jones · 49 Cal. 2d 359 - Gillespie v. Rawlings

2. “The term 'serious and wilful misconduct' is described by the supreme court of Massachusetts as being something 'much more than mere negligence, or even gross or culpable negligence' and as involving 'conduct of a quasi criminal nature, the intentional doing of something either with the knowledge that it is likely to result in serious injury, or with a wanton and reckless disregard of its possible consequences.' ... To constitute 'wilful misconduct' there must be actual knowledge, or that which in the law is esteemed to be the equivalent of actual knowledge, of the peril to be apprehended from the failure to act, coupled with a conscious failure to act to the end of averting injury.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. James I. Barnes Construction Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission · 30 Cal. 2d 193 - Cope v. Davison

3. “'Wilful misconduct ... necessarily involves deliberate, intentional, or wanton conduct in doing or omitting to perform acts, with knowledge or appreciateion of the fact, on the part of the culpable person, that danger is likely to result therefrom.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Levizon v. Harrison · 66 Cal. App. 2d 339 - Central California Ice Co. v. Industrial Accident Commision