Crown v. . Orr’s Empirical Analysis
1893
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently November 1927 · most notably Dowd v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co. (1902), Fitzwater v. . Warren (1912)
9 federal appellate · 94 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 Cahill v. . Hilton · De Graff v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad · Haskin v. N. Y. Central & Hudson River Railroad · Haskins v. . New York Central and Hudson River Rd. Co.
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The master does not insure the servant against all accidents and mishaps that may hel'all him in the business. The servant, when he enters into the relation, assumes, not only all the risks incident to such employment, hut all dangers which are obvious and apparent. The law imposes upon him the duty of self-protection, and always assumes that this instinct, so deeply rooted in human nature, will guard him against all risks and dangers incident to the employment, or arising in the course of the business; of which he has knowledge, or the means of knowledge. If he voluntarily enters into or continues in the service, without objection or complaint, having knowledge or the means of knowing the dangers involved, he is deemed to assume the. risk, and to waive any claim for damages against the master in case of personal injury to him. [Citing cases.] This principle applies to the plaintiff, though he was not at the time of full age. Like any other servant, he took upon himself the ordinary risks of the service, and all dangers from the use of machinery which were known to him, or obvious to persons of ordinary intelligence. [Citing cases.] He is hound to take notice of the ordinary operation of familiar laws, and to govern himself accordingly; and, if he fails to do so, the risk is his own. He is hound to use his eyes to see that which is open and apparent to any person so using them, and, if he neglects to do so, he cannot charge the consequences upon the master.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““If the injury to the servant is attributable to the master’s-neglect in omitting to furnish safé and adequate appliances for the work, according to the nature of the business, or competent co-servants, or even if he neglects to give persons unacquainted with tin; use of machinery proper instructions with respect to its use, he is liable.’’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The plaintiff had been at work hi front of this machine for three weeks, and during that time had full opportunity to observe the manner of handling this hood, and placing it upon the machine. He had the same opportunity of informing himself with respect to any danger attending such an act as the master had.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.