Sproul v. Cuddy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Here, as stated in the Basin Oil case, supra, page 596, Exhibit ‘A’ must be construed most strongly against defendants ‘as being the product of its own draftsmanship and designed to whittle down the normal and ordinary rights of a customer. [Citation.] ’ “Measured by the above criteria, it is at once apparent that not only does Exhibit ‘A’ contain no reference to negligence, nor any clear and explicit indication that defendants were attempting to relieve themselves of their duty of using due care with reference to their rental of the ‘ invalid walker, ’ but the exact contrary appears from the opening asseveration that the licensor ‘uses great care to have all its eqtiipment in good order and repair.’ This statement, even if attenuated so as to relate to reasonable care rather than ‘great care,’ permeates the entire limitation notice and is the precondition for the operation of the comprehensive exculpatory declarations which follow. It qualifies and limits, at least to the extent there announced, the ensuing language. Such an interpretation is plainly dictated by the principles to which we have hitherto adverted. It seems also to give all the language used a harmonious construction and avoids perverting the notice into nothing more than a semantic trap for the unwary.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 185 Cal. App. 2d 545 - Continental Manufacturing Corp. v. Underwriters at Lloyds London

2. ““. . . ‘to be sufficient as an exculpatory provision against one’s own negligence, the party seeking to rely thereon must select words or terms clearly and explicitly expressing that this was the intent of the -parties. ’ (Sproul v. Cuddy, 131 Cal.App.2d 85, 95 [ 280 P.2d 158 ].) ... As stated in Basin Oil Co. v. Baash-Ross Tool Co., 125 Cal.App.2d 578, 595 [ 271 P.2d 122 ], quoting from Pacific Indemnity Co. v. California Elec. Works, Ltd., 29 Cal.App.2d 260, 274 [ 84 P.2d 313 ], ‘. . . It could have plainly stated, if such was the understanding of the parties, that the plaintiff agreed to relieve it in the matter from all liability for its own negligence. . . [Citations.] ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Western Gulf Oil Co. v. Oilwell Service Co.