Simone v. . Kirk’s Empirical Analysis
1902
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 1989 · most notably 724 F. Supp. 1421 - Andrulonis v. United States (1989), Jenks v. . Thompson (1904)
2 federal appellate · 26 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedSimone v. Kirk
Relationships
Relies on McGovern v. Central Vermont R. R. · Butler v. . Townsend · Pantzar v. . Tilly Foster Iron Mining Co. · Benzing v. . Steinway and Sons · Dowd v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Certain work is inherently dangerous, and yet the master has the right to hire servants to do it. In such cases, however, unless the danger is obvious to an ordinary observer, it is his duty to give them due warning, so that they may refuse to work if they do not wish to run the risk, and proper instructions so that if they enter upon the work they may be able to take care of themselves. Pantzar v. Tilly Foster Iron Mining Co., 99 N. Y. 368 , 2 N. E. 24 ; Benzing v. Steinway & Sons, 101 N. Y. 547 , 5 N. E. 449 ; McGovern v. Central Vermont R. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 280 , 25 N. E. 373 ; Gates v. State of N. Y., 128 N. Y. 221 , 226, 28 N. E. 373 ; Eastland v. Clarke, 165 N. Y. 420 , 428, 59 N. E. 202 , 70 L. R. A. 751 ; Finn v. Cassidy, 165 N. Y. 584 59 N. E. 311 , 53 L. R. A. 877 ; Dowd v. N. Y., Ont. & W. Ry. Co., 170 N. Y. 459 , 63 N. E. 541 . There is no complaint in this action as to want of care on the part of the defendants in furnishing suitable appliances for their servants to work. with. The crucial question is whether the defendants used due diligence to furnish a safe place, in so inspecting it so as to keep it reasonably safe, and in properly warning the plaintiff’s intestate. These duties were for the defendants to discharge as masters, and they conld not delegate them even to a competent foreman without being responsible for the manner in which they were performed. Whoever, in fact, performed or attempted to perform them, stood for the defendants as their alter ego, ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.