185 Ill. App. 3d 630 - King v. Petefish’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 236 Ill. App. 3d 761 - Benner v. Bell (1992), 172 Ill. 2d 193 - Watkins v. Schmitt (1996)
4 federal appellate · 39 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 111 Ill. 2d 229 - Purtill v. Hess · 85 Ill. 2d 1 - Alvis v. Ribar · 2 Ill. 2d 74 - Ney v. Yellow Cab Co. · 124 Ill. 2d 287 - Addison v. Whittenberg · 112 Ill. 2d 252 - Teter v. Clemens
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It appears that in States where contributory negligence is the rule, such as Alabama (see Keller, 389 So.2d 129 ), a cause of action by an entrustee against an entrustor under section 390 will be a self-defeating claim. However, the States that have adopted comparative negligence seem to uniformly accept such a cause of action. We find section 390 of the Restatement is appropriately applied to negligent entrustment cases of the type before us and hold, by that authority, a suit brought by an injured entrustee against his entrustor is a viable cause of action in a comparative negligence jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lydia v. Horton · Herland v. Izatt“Upon our review of the authorities cited, we conclude, in agreement with appellants, that this action is properly maintainable under the “negligent entrustment” theory, and that the evidence tending to establish negligence on the part of Brown in consciously deciding to take control of the vehicle, even though he knew he was in no condition to drive, must be weighed and considered, under comparative negligence principles, in relation to the evidence tending to establish negligence on the part of Faris in turning the car over to one whose faculties he either knew or should have known were impaired by drinking..... ... We are persuaded, in view of the existence of the comparative negligence rule in Florida, that the liability for negligent entrustment under the circumstances indicated by the pleadings and the proofs thus far submitted in this case must be determined by the trier of fact after a comparative fault trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lydia v. Horton“Section 390 establishes a framework for examining the entrustment of a vehicle to an individual who presents an unreasonable risk of drinking and driving, based either on known propensity or intoxication on the occasion of the entrustment. The framers of section 390 specifically envi sioned its application to cases of intoxicated entrustees. Illustration 7 states: A, who makes a business of letting out boats for hire, rents his boat to B and C, who are obviously so intoxicated as to make it likely that they will mismanage the boat so as to capsize it or to collide with other boats. B and C by their drunken mismanagement collide with the boat of D, upsetting both boats. B, C, and D are drowned. A is subject to liability to the estates of B, C, and D under the death statute, although the estates of B and C may also be liable for the death of D.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lydia v. Horton
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.