Zumwalt v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
160 F.2d 298 · 1947
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 1997 · most notably Moran v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. (1950), National Labor Relations Board v. Ford (1948)
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 1 · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad · Baltimore Co v. Groeger · Southern Ry Co v. Lunsford · Ramsouer v. Midland Valley R. · Union Electric Light & Power Co. v. Snyder Estate 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(3, 4) * * * The important, if not the controlling, question in this case arises with reference to the applicability of the res ipsa loquitur rule. Proof of the sudden jarring or jerking of the engine would under the circumstances disclosed present, we think, a proper case for the application of the doctrine. The engine was under the control and management of the defendant, and the occurrence as testified to by the plaintiff at least was such as in the ordinary course of things would not have happened if those who had the engine in control or management had used proper care, and if the engine had been in proper repair. * * * May Department Stores Co. v. Bell, 8 Cir., 61 F.2d 830, 840 . Since this action is based on the Federal statutes the rule of the state courts need not be reviewed. It is practically conceded that the facts and circumstances disclosed surrounding the happening of this accident would ordinarily under proper pleadings warrant the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, but it is argued that the plaintiff in effect waived his right to rely upon that doctrine by pleading specific acts of negligence. In May Department Stores Co. v. Bell, supra, an exhaustive study of this subject was made and it was concluded that under the Missouri rule an allegation of specific negligence deprives plaintiff of the right to rely upon res ipsa loquitur. It must be noted, however, that since the opinion in that case was handed down, the Supreme Court has promulgated, pur”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““(9) Respondent suggests that this rule [res ipsa loquitur] does not apply where there is a specific pleading and proof of negligence. The cases which it cites do not, in my opinion, apply here since the enactment of Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the engine suddenly, unexpectedly, and with an unusual and violent jerk threw and knocked him from the footboard.”
1 later decision 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.