Sothoron v. West’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently December 2005 · most notably 145 W. Va. 408 - Spurlin v. Nardo (1960), Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed (1953)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Delair v. McAdoo · 29 Ala. App. 411 - William E. Harden, Inc. v. Harden · 101 Cal. App. 274 - Rath v. Bankston · Scheer v. Melville · Landry v. Hubert
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The appellee offered as an excuse for the accident the fact that her brakes did not hold. She offered no evidence of any inspection. She testified to a drive which carried her through a number of city blocks and intersections. It is almost inconceivable that during the course of such a drive she did not at some time or other have occasion to use the foot brake. Her testimony, however, negatives this. The question before us, therefore, is whether the fact that her brakes suddenly failed her excuses her from the charge of negligence, when she has driven a number of city blocks without making the slightest test of these brakes, until their first use in the descent of a steep hill, where she has to rely on them for her safety and for the safety of other occupants of the highway. We do not think the appellee is excused. This is not the case of a latent defect which could not have been discovered. A person driving a strange car for the first time owes a duly to the public to see that there are no obvious defects in its mechanism which are apt to cause injury to others. Defective brakes are obvious, because they can be detected by the simple pressure of a foot. The test is so simple that anyone can make it. If such a test shows the brakes in working order, and then they suddenly fail, the driver may not be liable for negligence in driving with them. If no test is made, if the brakes are not even tried, the driver cannot rely upon a presumption that the machine is safe. He will not ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The better and more general rule, however, seems to be that failure of brakes to operate makes only a prima facie case which the driver may defend by showing proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning.””
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.