138 Ind. App. 93 - Mitchell v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 1995
10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Whitaker, Admr. v. Borntrager · Arizona Binghampton Copper Co. v. Dickson · Cummings v. Union Quarry & Construction Co. · 146 Ohio St. 212 - Hilleary v. Bromley · Green v. Sansom
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general rule is that in a contractee-contractor relationship the contractee is not liable for injuries sustained by the contractor in the performance of the contract. Hilleary v. Bromley et al. (1946), 146 Ohio St. 212 , 64 N.E.2d 832 ; 57 C.J.S. Master & Servant § 607, p. 379. However, where the contractee agrees or undertakes to furnish the instrumentalities for doing the work he must use due care to provide that the instrumentalities furnished are reasonably safe for the purpose for which they are provided. 57 C.J.S. supra. This duty was discussed in the case of Cummings v. Union Quarry & Construction Co. (1935), 231 Mo. App. 1224 , 87 S.W.2d 1039 , cited in 31 A.L.R. 1411 ; in that decision the court stated that if the owner furnished the instrumentalities with which the work is to be accomplished, to the independent contractor, and retains possession and control over the place where the work was to be done and the instrumentalities, the independent contractor is then placed in the same standing as a servant and employee in that due care must be exercised by the employer to see that the place and instrumentalities are reasonably safe for the purpose for which they are furnished.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cates v. Jolley
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.