England v. Tasker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 district · 47 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “government entities employ and train firefighters and policemen, at least in part, to deal with those hazards that may result from the actions or inaction of an uncircumspect citizenry, it offends public policy to say that a citizen invites private liability merely because he happens to create a need for those public services.... Citizens should be encouraged and not in any way discouraged from relying on those public employees who have been specially trained and paid to deal with these hazards. Additionally, a citizen does not have the right to exclude public safety officers from emergency situations or to control their actions once they have been alerted to an emergency and arrive on the scene. Indeed, a citizen may have a legal duty to summon a public safety officer in some instances and [saying that] he may, in the course of discharging that duty, risk tort liability to officers who are specially trained and hired to cope with these hazards, [would be] inconsistent and unfair.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sepega v. DeLaura Concurrence

2. “Stated affirmatively, what is meant is that it is the fireman's business to deal with that very hazard and hence, perhaps by analogy to the contractor engaged as an expert to remedy dangerous situations, he cannot complain of negligence in the creation of the very occasion for his engagement. In terms of duty, it may be said there is none owed the fireman to exercise care so as not to require the special services for which he is trained and paid. * * * * * * [T]he fireman should receive appropriate compensation from the public he serves, both in pay which reflects the hazard and in workmen's compensation benefits for the consequences of the inherent risks of the calling.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Anicet v. Gant

3. ““In the case at bar, there is no question that the plaintiff was injured while responding in his professional capacity to the very type of situation for which he was paid and trained to cope. His complaint is ‘based on the same conduct that initially created the need for [his] presence in his official capacity,’ Pottebaum v. Hinds, 347 N.W.2d [642, 645 (Iowa 1984)], arid thus is barred. We note that this is not a case involving a subsequent independent act of negligencé directed toward the police officer, and thus we need not consider the extent to which the rule might apply in such cases.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gould v. George Brox, Inc.