Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 152 Ohio St. 50 - Hasbrook v. Wingate

152 Ohio St. 50 - Hasbrook v. Wingate’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

79
cited by 79 later decisions
15
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 75 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Mellk v. Sarahson (1967), Johnson v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (1970)

2 federal appellate · 75 state decisions — followed in 15 states

30019491950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"'"The general rule is that if the transportation of a rider confers a benefit only on the person to whom the ride is given, and no benefits other than such as are incidental to hospitality, goodwill or the like, on the person furnishing the transportation, the rider is a guest; but if his carriage tends to promote the mutual interest of both himself and [the] driver for their common benefit, thus creating a joint business relationship between the motorist and his rider, or where the rider accompanies the driver at the instance of the latter for the purpose of having the rider render a benefit or service to the driver on a trip which is primarily for the attainment of some objective of the driver, the rider is a passenger and not a guest."`"”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““What was intended originally as a gratuity, cannot subsequently be made the-basis of an obligation.” Hasbrook v. Wingate, 152 Ohio St. 50 , 87 N.E.2d 87 , at page 91, 10 A.L.R.2d 1342 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"The question of who is a `guest' within the contemplation of a statute limiting liability of the owner or operator of a motor vehicle for injury to a guest is largely a question for determination in the individual case. Generally such statutes by their terms are limited to passengers or riders who are being carried gratuitously. The word `guest' should be construed in the light of the legislative purpose, and should not be extended beyond correction of the evils and attainment of the permissible social objects inducing its enactment. "A guest is one who is invited, either directly or by implication, to enjoy the hospitality of the driver, and who accepts such hospitality and takes a ride either for his own pleasure or on his own business, without making any return to or conferring any benefit upon the driver other than the mere pleasure of his company. A person riding in a motor vehicle is a guest if his carriage confers a benefit only upon himself and no benefit upon the owner or operator except such as is incidental to hospitality, social relations, companionship, or the like as a mere gratuity. However, if his carriage contributes such tangible and substantial benefits as to promote the mutual interests of both the passenger and the owner or operator, or is primarily for the attainment of some tangible and substantial objective or business purpose of the owner or operator, he is not a guest. * *"”
    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.