128 Cal. App. 2d 641 - Boyd v. White’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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. “"The courts and the law formerly looked upon aviation with the viewpoint still expressed in the American Law Institute, Restatement, Torts, Vol. 3, § 520, holding that aviation is an ultra-hazardous activity, similar to the operation of automobiles in the early days of the horseless carriage, and requiring those who take part in it to observe the highest degree of care. The Uniform Aeronautic Act, adopted in time by twenty-three states, imposed absolute liability on the owner, as well as the operator or lessee, of every aircraft for any damage to person or property caused by its operation provided there was no contributory negligence on the part of him who was thus harmed. With the passage of time, however, this view came to be modified, and the trend of decisions established it to be the general rule that, properly handled by a competent pilot exercising reasonable care, an airplane is not an inherently dangerous instrument, so that in the absence of statute the ordinary rules of negligence control, and the owner (or operator) of an airship is only liable for injury inflicted upon another when such damage is caused by a defect in the plane or its negligent operation. By 1945, coincident with the opening of the postwar civilian aviation period, the number of states retaining the portions of the Uniform Aeronautic Act dealing with an owner's liability had dropped to eighteen." (See also 6 Am. Jur. (Rev.), § 60, p. 36.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 109 Wash. 2d 581 - Crosby v. Cox Aircraft Company · 150 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 829 - Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. Coleman

2. “‘ ‘ California has adopted a policy of imposing strict liability on owners or bailors in connection with certain activities. But this state has limited such policy to those activities that are obviously and plainly ultrahazardous. Thus, drilling an oil well in a settled area that ‘blows off,’ damaging adjoining properties, imposes liability regardless of the care used (Green v. General Petroleum Corp., 205 Cal. 328 [ 270 P. 952 , 60 A.L.R. 475 ]); or where hydrocyanic gas used to exterminate cockroaches escapes (Luthringer v. Moore, 31 Cal.2d 489 [ 190 P.2d 1 ]); or where the defendant farmer employed an independent contractor to spray his farm with gas containing arsenic and the fumes from such spraying killed plaintiff’s bees located on nearby land (Miles v. A. Arena & Co., 23 Cal. App.2d 680 [ 73 P.2d 1260 ]). Cases involving other ultra-hazardous activities can undoubtedly be cited. But the operation of an airplane in the year 1954 is not such a dangerous activity that it can be placed in this category. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 134 Cal. App. 2d 834 - Beck v. Bel Air Properties, Inc.

3. “It is true that the law formerly looked upon aviation as an ultrahazardous activity and the Uniform Aeronautics Act which was once adopted in many states did impose absolute liability on the owner as well as the operator or lessee of every aircraft for any damage to person or property caused by its operation unless there was contributory negligence on the part of the injured person. However, this view has come to be modified and now it is considered that properly handled by a competent pilot an airplane is not an inherently dangerous instrument.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 150 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 829 - Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. Coleman