15 Cal. 3d 351 - Newing v. Cheatham’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 162 Cal. App. 4th 1107 - Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures and Television (2008), 41 Cal. App. 4th 189 - Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School District (1995)
5 federal appellate · 88 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 25 Cal. 2d 486 - Ybarra v. Spangard · Estate of Lances · United Air Lines, Inc. v. Wiener · 45 Cal. 2d 811 - Seneris v. Haas · 2 Cal. 3d 741 - Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified School District
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is settled law in this state that the ‘doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable where the accident is of such a nature that it can be said, in the light of past experience, that it probably was the result of negligence by someone and that the defendant is probably the one responsible.’ [Citation omitted.] According to the classic and oft-repeated statement, there are three conditions for the application of the doctrine: ‘(1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. [Citations omitted.] * * * ’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the cause of action alleged in the complaint is supported, and no substantial support is given to the defense alleged by the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"(1) It may be inferred that harm suffered by the plaintiff is caused by negligence of the defendant when "(a) the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; "(b) other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence; and "(c) the indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff. "(2) It is the function of the court to determine whether the inference may reasonably be drawn by the jury, or whether it must necessarily be drawn. "(3) It is the function of the jury to determine whether the inference is to be drawn in any case where different conclusions may reasonably be reached."”
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.