194 Cal. App. 2d 449 - Johnson v. Popso’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is well settled in this state that those who, because of loss of memory due to the accident are unable to testify as to their activities immediately preceding and at the time of the accident are, with certain qualifications, entitled to an instruction that they are presumed to have exercised reasonable care. (Douglas v. Hoff, 82 Cal.App.2d 82 [ 185 P.2d 607 ]; Bergman v. Bierman, 138 Cal.App.2d 692 [ 292 P.2d 623 ].) ... [4] But it is equally well settled that one is entitled to the presumption only (1) where the loss of memory is a result of the accident on which he bases his claim (Simon v. City & County of San Francisco, 79 Cal.App.2d 590, 598 [ 180 P.2d 393 ]; Scott v. Burke, 39 Cal.2d 388, 394 [ 247 P.2d 313 ]; Ford v. Chesley Transportation Co., 101 Cal.App.2d 548, 551 [ 225 P.2d 997 ]; Bergman v. Bierman, 138 Cal.App.2d 692 [ 292 P.2d 623 ]; Kumelauskas v. Cozzi, 173 Cal.App.2d 541 [ 343 P.2d 605 ]; Smith v. Sugich Co., 179 Cal.App.2d 299 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]); and (2) where the party seeking the benefit of the presumption has not presented testimony which is wholly irreconcilable with the presumption. (Scott v. Burke, supra; Kellogg v. Gaynor, 134 Cal.App.2d 288, 291 [ 285 P.2d 288 ]; Johns v. Ward, 170 Cal.App.2d 780, 789-790 [ 339 P.2d 926 ]; Bergman v. Bierman, supra, Kumelauskas v. Cozzi, supra.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 203 Cal. App. 2d 72 - Klein v. Southern Pac. Co.

2. “It is just as clear that it cannot be held, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence proximately causing the injuries. These are questions of fact that should have been submitted to the jury. The evidence most favorable to plaintiff shows that, as a result of the accident, he is unable to remember just how the accident occurred. It is now well settled in this state that where a plaintiff by reason of loss of memory is unable to testify respecting his conduct at and immediately before the time of the accident, and produces no witnesses who testify to such facts, he is entitled to the benefit of the presumption that he was exercising due care. This presumption is itself evidence sufficient to create a conflict with the evidence produced by defendant, and requires that the issue of contributory negligence be submitted to the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCall v. Otis Elevator Co.