Berge v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 23 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] party who participates in the drinking activities during which the injuring party becomes intoxicated cannot recover under the dramshop act for injuries sustained as a result of such intoxication. [Authorities.] Two reasons for the rule expressed in the cases are that one cannot profit from his own wrong and a person who participates in the drinking activities is not an innocent person entitled to protection under the dramshop act.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martin v. Heddinger · Cox v. Rolling Acres Golf Course Corp.

2. ““ * * * The jury was told it is the law that where one voluntarily becomes a guest in an automobile when he knows or should have known the driver is under the influence of liquor, he is deemed to assume the risk of an accident and injury and cannot recover against the driver. Later, in applying the law to the facts of the case instruction 5 states that if decedent knew defendant was intoxicated, or if a reasonable man under like circumstances would have known such fact, plaintiff cannot recover.” (loe. cit. 243 Iowa at page 390, 52 N.W.2d at page 83 ). The case was reversed. We said in part: “Mere lack of care, without more, does not amount to assumption of risk. The doctrine involves a choice between a course known to be dangerous and one that is not. * * *. “It cannot logically be held that one has deliberately chosen a dangerous course of which he is ignorant merely because he should have known of it. The effect of instruction 5 here is to enlarge the doctrine of assumed risk to include conduct which amounts merely to contributory negligence notwithstanding our repeated decisions that contributory negligence is not an issue or a defense in actions under our guest statute. * * * “Defendant argues, in effect, that if instruction 5 was error in the respect claimed it was without prejudice to plaintiff because, it is said, plaintiff’s decedent assumed the risk of defendant’s intoxication as a matter of law. But we think this defense was for the jury. “While, as stated, there i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sauer v. Scott

3. “The two reasons for the rule [complicity] in the cases are that one cannot profit from his own wrong and a person who participates in the drinking activities is not an innocent person entitled to protection under the dramshop act. [[Image here]] We find nothing in the [dramshop] statute suggesting that an injured party should be allowed to recover regardless of his conduct. The doctrine of complicity is a recognition of the fact that the right to recover is limited to innocent persons. One who knowingly rides with a drunken driver can hardly be included in that category. We find no statutory bar to the application of assumption of the risk. [[Image here]] We do not believe it contributes to the fulfillment of [the statute] if the injured party is given no responsibility for his own welfare. Theoretically, at least, a person might be more willing to submit himself to the danger of riding with an intoxicated person if he could retain a cause of action under the dramshop act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gremmel v. Junnie's Lounge, Ltd.