Torgesen v. . Schultz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 25 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is manifest that there was no contract relation between the plaintiff and the defendant, but the defendant is sought to be held liable under the doctrine of Thomas v. Winchester, C 1\T. Y. 397, and similar cases, based upon the duty of the vendor of an article dangerous in its nature, or likely to become so in the course of the ordinary usage to be contemplated by the vendor, either to exercise due care to warn users of the danger, or to take reasonable care to prevent the article sold from proving dangerous when subjected only to customary usage. The principle of law invoked is that which was well stated by Lord Justice Cotton in Heaven v. Pender, L. R. 11 Q. B. D. 503, as follows; ‘Any one who leaves a dangerous instrument, as a gun, in such a way as io cause danger, or who without due warning supplies to others for use an instrument or thing which to his knowledge, from its construction or otherwise,.is in such a condition as to cause danger, not necessarily incident to the use of such an instrument or thing, is liable for Injury caused to others by reason of his negligent act.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson