Washington Co v. McDade’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

231 federal appellate · 22 district · 134 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 521 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A railway company is bound to use ordinary care to furnish safe machinery and appliances for the use of its employes, and the neglect of its agents in that regard is its neglect. That it is not bound to insure the absolute safety thereof, nor to apply the best and safest and newest of such mechanical appliances, but is bound to use all reasonable care and prudence in providing machinery reasonably safe and suitable for use, and in keeping the same in repair. That, ‘by “ordinary care” is meant such as a prudent man would use under the same circumstances. It must be measured bjr the character and risks of such business. And where such persons, whose duty it is to repair the appliances of the business, know, or ought to know, by the exercise of reasonable care, of the defects in the machinery, the company is responsible for their neglect.’ ””

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Southern Pacific Co. v. Seley · Atchison, T. & S. F. R. v. Myers

2. “‘‘Where it is necessary to show a certain state of facts, it is not sufficient to prove two or more different states of case one of which may be sufficient, but either of which may equally, under the testimony, have existed. “The plaintiff must prove something which warrants the inference of negligence on the part of the defendant, and not base his case upon facts just as consistent with care and prudence as with the opposite. “Where the evidence is equally consistent with either view — the existence or nonexistence of negligence — it is not competent for the judge to leave the matter to the jury. The party who affirms the negligence has failed to establish it. This is a rule which never ought to be lost sight of. “An inference cannot be drawn from a presumption, but must be founded upon some fact legally established.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pulaski Mining Co. v. Hagan · Neeley v. Southwestern Cotton Seed Oil Co.

3. ““The plaintiffs were allowed to show that other machinery or appliances than those used by the defendant would have been safer; for example, a strap brake, a friction Y, so called, or a reversible engine. In order to aid the jury in determining whether the defendant had exercised reasonable care in 'providing and maintaining the machinery actually in use, it was competent to show what other kinds of machinery or appliances were used elsewhere, and might have been used in shaft No. 1. Wheeler v. Wason Manuf. Co., 135 Mass. 294 , 298. It does not follow from the introduction of such evidence that the defendant was bound to use the very safest, or newest, or any particular, machinery or appliances; but, as ‘reasonable care’ is a relative term, the jury might properly consider what could be done to secure safety, and the evidence was competent.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. McDonough