164 Pa. Commw. 482 - Taylor v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

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

1. ““(a) the number of other factors which contribute in producing the harm and the extent of the effect which they have in producing it; “(b) whether the actor’s conduct has created a force or series of forces which are in continuous and active operation up to the time of the harm, or has created a situation harmless unless acted upon by other forces for which the actor is not responsible; “(c) lapse of time.” quoted in Taylor v. Jackson, 164 Pa. Commw. 482, 491 , 643 A.2d 771, 775 (1994). See also, Restatement (Second) of Torts §433 cmt. a (“[These factors] are important to a court in determining whether upon the evidence there is room for a reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the defendant’s negligence is a substantial factor in bringing about the other’s harm.”).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lux v. Gerald E. Ort Trucking Inc. · Lux v. Gerald E. Ort Trucking Inc.

2. “Comment (f) of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433(c) provides that “where it is evident that the influence of the actor’s negligence is still a substantial factor, mere lapse of time, no matter how long it is, is not sufficient to prevent it from being the legal cause of the other harm.” Moreover, our [S]upreme [C]ourt in Ford v. Jeffries, 474 Pa. 588 , 379 A.2d 111 (1977), observed that the determination of whether an actor’s conduct was a substantial cause of the injuries complained of should not be taken from the jury if the jury may reasonable differ about whether the conduct of the actor has been a substantial factor in causing the harm. Since we believe that reasonable individuals can differ regarding the question of whether a two hour period should insulate a negligent actor from suit given the particular and unique facts of the instant matter, we hold that the trial court erred in granting summaiy judgment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hennessy v. Robertson

3. “It is beyond question that the mere existence of negligence and the occurrence of injury are insufficient to impose liability upon anyone as there remains to be proved the link of causation. Furthermore, our Supreme Court has stated that “... even when it is established that the defendant breached some duty of care owed the plaintiff, it is incumbent on a plaintiff to establish a causal connection between defendant’s conduct, and it must be shown to have been the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 400 - Lux v. Gerald E. Ort Trucking, Inc.