King Soopers, Inc. v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Vigil v. Franklin (2004), 641 So. 2d 20 - Tharp v. Bunge Corp. (1994)
9 federal appellate · 60 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Phillips v. Denver City Tramway Co. · Brent v. Bank of Aurora · Catlett v. Colorado & Southern Railway Co. · Rudolph v. Elder · FW Woolworth Company v. Peet
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . But we agree with the conclusion of the trial court that that case is distinguished from the case at bar. The lack of evidence to form a basis for jury determination that the condition had existed for any length of time was there the determining factor. The Court pointed out that the burden was upon the plaintiff to establish that the condition complained of was present for a time of sufficient duration prior to the accident to enable a prudent man to discover and remedy it. Another distinguishing fact is the more hazardous condition apparent here, created by the snow covering the ice. Furthermore, the icy area in the present case sloped downward from the ridge so as to create a risk to a person carrying a sack of groceries. The additional fact that defendant here seemingly made no effort to clear the areas or to give warning convinces us that neither Brent v. Bank of Aurora, supra nor the decision of the Court in F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Peet, 132 Colo. 11 , 284 P.2d 659 (which was relied on in the Brent case) are here applicable.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Much emphasis is given to the fact that the icy condition of the area was obvious. We fail to perceive the significance of this factor in the present circumstances. Where a grocery shopper must cross a supermarket parking lot heavily laden with goods purchased in order to board his automobile it is of little help to him to be aware of the presence of ice along the way. Under these circumstances the likelihood of injury is not lessened by his knowledge and the degree of care which he exercises. Many cases recognize this.” Citing Prosser on Torts, Second Ed., page 459 (now Third Ed., page 403). The court also cites “Professor James in an article in 63 Yale Law Journal, pages 605-626, [who] comments on this special situation and concludes that the landowner is negligent under circumstances like those present here even though the hazard was apparent to the business visitor.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“where the condition is one which the invitee would not expect to find in the particular place, or his attention is distracted by something on the premises, or the condition is one ... which cannot be encountered with reasonable safety even though the invitee is aware of it”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.