Pierce v. Ford Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
190 F.2d 910 · 1951
Citation profile
94 federal appellate · 24 district · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 238 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Gulbenkian v. Penn (1952), 148 W. Va. 160 - Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York (1963)
94 federal appellate · 24 district · 67 state decisions — followed in 24 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · Meredith v. City of Winter Haven
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 238 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“even where there is no dispute as to the evidentiary facts but only as to the conclusions to be drawn therefrom.”
50 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is argued that any negligence of the manufacturer in turning out a defective car is insulated by that of a mechanic who inspects it after-wards so that the latter will be deemed the proximate cause of any injury resulting from its defective condition; but this argument is entirely without merit. As said in Harper on Torts, ch. 7 sec. 106, quoted in Foley v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co., 363 Pa. 1 , 68 A.2d 517 , 529: ‘A negligent defendant cannot escape liability because of a failure on the part of some third person to perform an affirmative duty which, if properly performed, would have enabled the plaintiff to avoid the risk created by the defendant’s negligence. The failure of the other to inspect adequately may make him liable to the party harmed, but it will not relieve the defendant whose negligence was responsible for the hazard in the first place.’ “As we pointed out in Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. McDonald, 4 Cir., 125 F.2d 849 , 852: Tt is well settled under the law of Virginia that “a cause, to be a superseding cause, must entirely supersede the operation of the negligence of the defendant, so that such cause alone, without the defendant’s negligence contributing in the slightest degree thereto, in fact produced the injury.” ’ ” 2”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Where there has been negligence in the construction or preparation of the article sold or supplied — that is, where, under the circumstances, injuries to the other contracting party or third persons might reasonably have been anticipated as a result of defects or errors therein — the question of privity of contract seems wholly immaterial. The liability depends upon the rule of natural and proximate cause and contemplation of consequences.””
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.