Knisley v. . Pratt’s Empirical Analysis
1896
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently October 1937 · most notably Butler v. Frazee (1908), Dowd v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co. (1902)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 89 state decisions — followed in 18 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 McGovern v. Central Vermont R. R. · Willy v. . Mulledy · O'Maley v. South Boston Gas Light Co. · Pauley v. Steam Gauge & Lantern Co. · United States Trust Co. v. New York West Shore & Buffalo Railway 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defendants are chargeable, therefore, with one omission, only, under the statute, viz. a failure to properly guard the cogwheels of the'punching machine. In order to sustain the judgment in favor of plaintiff, it is necessary to hold that where the statute imposes a duty upon the employer, the performance of which will afford greater protection to the employé, it is not possible for the latter to waive the protection of the statute under the common-law doctrine of obvious risks. We regard this as a new and startling doctrine, calculated to establish a measure of liability unknown to the common law, and which is contrary to the decisions of Massachusetts and England under similar statutes. It should be remarked at the outset that the factory act in this state does not, in terms, give a cause of action to one suffering an injury by reason of the failure of the employer to discharge his duty thereunder. An action for such injury is the ordinary common-law action for negligence, and subject to the rules of the common law. Caswell v. Worth, 5 El. & Bl. 855. The principle contended for seems to rest, if it can be maintained at all, upon a question of public policy. The factory act, it is said, is passed to regulate the employment of women and children, and imposes upon the employer certain duties, and subjects him to specified penalties in case of default; that a sound public policy requires the rigid enforcement of this act, and it would contravene that policy to permit an em”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We are of the opinion that there is no reason in principle or authority why an employé should not be allowed to assume the obvious risks of the business as well under the factory act as otherwise.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCarthy v. Emerson
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.