Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 124 Md. App. 375 - Boddie v. Scott

124 Md. App. 375 - Boddie v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
December 2009
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Wagner v. International Railway Co. · 69 Md. App. 342 - Pahanish v. Western Trails, Inc. · Rogers v. Frush · People's Drug Stores, Inc. v. Windham · Warner v. Markoe

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

  1. “Those who dash in to save their own property, or the lives or property of others, from a peril created by the defendant’s negligence, do not assume the risk where the alternative is to allow the threatened harm to occur. In all of these cases, of course, the danger may be out of all proportion to the value of any benefits involved, and so the plaintiff may be charged with contributory negligence for unreasonably choosing to confront the risk. And where there is a reasonably safe alternative open, the plaintiffs choice of the dangerous ivay is a free one, and may amount to assumption of risk, negligence or both.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he law measures acts done under the spur and stress of sudden emergencies ..., when done for the purpose of averting serious or even fatal consequences to others, with more indulgence than where they are impelled by no such motive. To constitute negligence as a matter of law, the act relied upon must present some feature of reckless indifference to one’s own safety, which leaves no room for ordinary minds to differ as to its quality.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[he] did not voluntarily assume the risk of injury when he picked up the frying pan because there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that (1) he was attempting to avert harm to the defendant’s property caused by defendant’s negligence and (2) he did not act unreasonably under the emergency conditions he faced.”
    1 later decision 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.