132 Cal. App. 2d 279 - Mula v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 77 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellant argues that a violation of a safety order constitutes negligence per se, and then apparently argues that in such a case liability is absolute. Appellant has misconceived the legal effect of a violation of a safety order or statute. It is undoubtedly true that the safety orders here involved were enacted for the protection of the class of which appellant is a member. This being so, a violation of the safety orders constituted negligence per se. (Clinkscales v. Carver, 22 Cal.2d 72 [ 136 P.2d 777 ].) In other words, in such a case the jury must be instructed that if a violation is found the jury must find the defendant guilty of negligence as a matter of law. Here the jury was so instructed. But because the defendant was negligent as a matter of law does not determine that he is absolutely liable. He may have any one of several defenses. He may be able to prove that, although he was negligent, plaintiff too acted negligently so as to contribute concurrently and proximately to the accident. (See Blodgett v. B. H. Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511 [ 50 P.2d 801 ].) The argument that, because respondent was guilty of negligence per se, the defense of contributory negligence has been eliminated, simply confuses negligence as a matter of law with the doctrine of absolute liability.” (See 35 Cal.Jur.2d, Negligence, § 17, p. 504.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 201 Cal. App. 2d 177 - Kasunich v. Kraft

2. “The law recognizes that the defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence are separate and distinct. Here the trial court properly ruled out the doctrine of assumption of risk, but permitted the jury to consider the defense of contributory negligence. This is in accord with the law applicable to the invitor-invitee relationship.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Florez v. Groom Development Co.

3. “It is 'elementary law' said the court in the Atherly (V. MacDonald, Young & Nelson, 142 Cal.App.2d 575, 298 P.2d 700) case, that ' "in cases of violation of a safety regulation the defendant cannot defend on the ground that the plaintiff for whose protection the regulation was passed assumed the risk.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. English