Moseley v. Sloman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““Manifestly the proximate cause of the accident was the failure of those on the steamer to discover the red light of the schooner until she was within one length of them. Judging from the event, the navigator of the steamer would have used better judgment, had he at once ported to the schooner's rod light, but that bit of navigation came so close to the collision that it need not be considered. The brief moment left in which to navigate was primarily responsible, and its briefness was the result of failure to make out the schooner earlier. The second officer was in charge of the steamer's navigation. The boatswain was on the bridge with him, performing there the duties of a junior officer. The quartermaster had served in the German navy; the lookout, in the German army. All were experienced men, and1 had undergone special eyesight examination. The captain was also ori deck, but he had returned so recently after a momentary absence in the chartroom to worlc out an observation, taken to ascertain location off shore, that ho should not be counted among the watchers for lights. It is difficult to understand how such a body of officers and men, at the beginning of their watch, could have failed to see the red light earlier, if it had been visible. The circumstance that it was lower than the plane of observation of the lookouts, that there was still an easterly sea. that several other lights had recently been seen and kept under observation, thus tending to distract attention, seem”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dunning v. Buckaloo

2. “■‘It is quite plain that the statements of the schooner as to both course and bearing cannot stand. Which one is to be rejected? Apparently the one which is most liable to error, and whose elimination will make the harmo- iiizing of tlie remaining testimony most easy. * * * Now, In the testimony as to course, assuming the witnesses to be honest, there is one source of error, viz: defective memory. The witnesses testify to facts, not opinions. The man who gave an order, the man who heard it, the man' who watched the compass card, all testify to their recollection of absolute facts. On the other hand, the testimony as to hearings is exposed not only to error resulting from imperfect memory, hut also to error from careless or unskillful estimates. The witnesses iesfify to their recollection of an opinion formed by them, which opinion may not originally have been an accurate one. Upon the whole It might well be supposed that the schooner’s testimony as to her course should prevail over her testimony as to the varying estimates of her watch as to bearings.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tooker v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.