Brittain v. Cubbon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The attractive nuisance doctrine prevailing in this jurisdiction is based upon negligence. Where the owner or operator of premises maintains upon such premises a condition, instrumentality, machine, or other agency which is dangerous to children of tender years by reason of their inability to appreciate the peril therein, and which reasonably may be expected to attract children of tender years to the premises, the owner or operator of the premises is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect such children against the dangers of the attraction. “The attractive nuisance doctrine applies only to latent dangers. What the law considers to be a latent danger is not confined to things hidden from the eye alone. It extends to things hidden from the appreciation of the person injured, hidden from the combination of eyesight and knowledge — hidden knowledge of the properties of the things which the eyesight observes. It may thus be said a concealed danger extends to things hidden from appreciation of persons injured, as well as to things hidden from the eye. “Where the condition maintained on premises constitutes an attractive nuisance, simple negligence on the part of the operator and the owner in failing to maintain an adequate fence, as required by ordinance, is sufficient to impose liability upon both the operator of the premises and the owner of the premises, on facts more particularly stated in the opinion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Albanese v. Edwardsville Mobile Home Village, Inc.

2. ““. . . While the doctrine has been variously stated, courts which accept it generally are in substantial accord with the proposition that one who maintains upon his premises a condition, instrumentality, machine or other agency which is dangerous to children of tender years by reason of their inability to appreciate the peril therein, and which may reasonably be expected to attract children of tender years to the premises, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the dangers of the attraction. Within the limitations hereinafter considered, the doctrine is for the benefit of a meddling, as well as of a trespassing, child. The result of such doctrine is that one is negligent in maintaining an agency which he knows, or reasonably should know, to be dangerous to children of tender years, at a place where he knows, or reasonably should know, children of tender years are likely to resort, or to which they are likely to be attracted by the agency, unless he exercises ordinary care for the protection of such indiscreet and youthful persons.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Kan. App. 2d 84 - Gerchberg Ex Rel. Gerchberg v. Loney

3. ““A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if “(a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and “(b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and “(c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and “(d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and “(e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Kan. App. 2d 84 - Gerchberg Ex Rel. Gerchberg v. Loney