Baltimore Co v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis
159 U.S. 603 · 1895
Citation profile
67 federal appellate · 6 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently October 1998 · most notably Houghton v. Payne (1904), Texas Ry Co v. Gentry (1896)
67 federal appellate · 6 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Grand Trunk Ry Co of Canada v. Ives · Improvement Company v. Munson · Delaware Co v. Converse · Pleasants v. Fant · Schofield v. Chicago M St P Ry 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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since the absence of any fault on the part of a plaintiff may be inferred from cirmustances, and the disposition of persons to take care of themselves and to keep out of difliculty may properly be taken into consideration (Railroad Co. v. Gladmon, 15 Wall. 401 [ 21 L. Ed. 114 ]), it is impossible to hold in the light of this evidence, as matter of law, that the conduct of plaintiff was such as to defeat a recovery. The rule was thus expounded by Mr. Justice Lamar in Grand Trunk Railway v. Ives, 144 U. S. 408 , 417 [ 12 Sup. Ct. 679 , 682 ( 36 L. Ed. 485 )]: ‘There is no fixed standard in the law by which a court is enabled to arbitrarily say in every case what conduct shall be considered reasonable and prudent, and what shall constitute ordinary care, under any and all circumstances. The terms ‘ordinary care,’ ‘reasonable prudence,’ and such like terms, as applied to the conduct and affairs of men, have a relative significance, and cannot be arbitrarily defined. What may be deelned ordinary care in one case may, under different surroundings and circumstances, be gross negligence. The policy of the law has relegated the determination of such questions- to the jury, under proper instructions from the court. It is their province to note the special circumstances and surroundings of each particular case, and then say whether the conduct of the parties in that case was such as would be expected of reasonable, prudent men, under a similar state of affairs. When a given state of fa”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““They have, indeed, the greatest incentives to caution, for their lives are in imminent danger if collision happen; and hence it will not be presumed without evidence that they do not exercise proper care in a particular case. For, conceding that the railway train has the right of precedence of crossing, the parties are still on equal terms as to the exercise of care and diligence in regard to their relative duties. The right of precedence referred to does not impose upon the wagon the whole duty of avoiding a collision. It is accompanied with, and conditioned upon, the duty of the train to give due and timely warning of its approach. The duty of the wagon to yield precedence is based upon this condition. Both parties are charged with the mutual duty of, keeping a careful lookout for danger; and the degree of diligence to be exercised on either side is such as a prudent man would exercise under the circumstances of the case in'endeavoring fairly to perform his duty.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since the absence of any fault on the part of a plaintiff may be inferred from circumstances, and tbe disposition of persons to take care of themselves, and to keep out of difficulty, may properly be taken into consideration (Railroad Co. v. Gladmon, 15 Wall. 401 ), it is impossible to hold, in the light of this evidence, as matter of law, that the conduct of plaintiff was such as to defeat a recovery.””
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.