Surface v. Safeway Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
169 F.2d 937 · 1948
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 1987 · most notably Continental Can Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Bernard F. Horton and Leroy L. Wade & Son, Inc., a Corporation (1957), Brown v. Slack (1954)
26 federal appellate · 2 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 Landrum v. Roddy · Grantham v. Watson Bros. Transportation · Bowerman v. Greenberg · Tite v. Omaha Coliseum Corp. · Malolepszy v. Central Market, Inc.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Among the important factors therefore on the question of contributory negligence are the nature of the preparations which the defendant properly may be expected to make for the plaintiff's safety in the immediate relationship, and the extent to which the plaintiff can assume in the particular situation that this duty is being performed. Thus, `one entering a store, theatre, office building or hotel, is entitled to expect that his host will make far greater preparations to secure the safety of his patrons than a householder will make for his social or even business visitors.' Restatement, Torts, § 343, Comment e. 32 "Also, as the Nebraska court has observed, `it would seem that the employees of a large department store would necessarily ascertain if reasonable care had been exercised in inspecting the premises and whether or not the floors were in a reasonably safe condition for invitees to enter and pass over them in the course of their shopping.' * * 33 "In a store invitee relationship, where the customer at the time is absorbed in an immediate shopping activity, we believe that the question of contributory negligence will usually be required to be left to the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Also, as the Nebraska court has observed, `it would seem that the employees of a large department store would necessarily ascertain if reasonable care had been exercised in inspecting the premises and whether or not the floors were in a reasonably safe condition for invitees to enter and pass over them in the course of their shopping.' * * 33”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is true that voluntary exposure to an obvious danger which reasonably can be avoided will ordinarily constitute contributory negligence”
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.