136 Cal. App. 279 - Wickman v. Lowenstein’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If any criticism may be made as to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s testimony to support the verdict, it is that plaintiff having seen the approaching automobile, erroneously judged its speed and distance when he continued his way over the street crossing. His testimony in that regard is that, when he stepped between the westerly car rails, he again looked to his right and saw the second south-bound machine about 250 feet away, and that he continued to walk westerly about Í2 feet when, looking once more northerly, he perceived defendants’ car with a foot of him and then received the blow. The case is nevertheless one for the jury. “ ‘There seems to be a general rule running through the cases where a pedestrian, or one standing on a highway, is injured by an automobile, which usually determines whether the question of contributory negligence is one of law, or of fact. Where the injured party fails to look at all, or looks straight ahead without glancing to either side, or is in a position where he cannot see, or, in other words, where he takes no precaution at all for his own safety, it is usually a question for the court. Where he looks but does not see an approaching automobile, or, seeing one, erroneously misjudging its speed or distance, or for some other reason assumes he could avoid injury to himself, the question is usually one for the jury.’ (Our italics.) White v. Davis, 103 Cal. App. 531, 542 , 284 P. 1086, 1091 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hunter v. Michaelis · 42 Cal. App. 2d 334 - Hoppe v. Bradshaw