199 W. Va. 637 - Self v. Queen’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
November 2013
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Rowland v. Christian · Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique · Rogers v. Loether · Sidle v. Humphrey · Mounsey v. Ellard
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes spoke of “fixed and uniform standards of external conduct” in his 1881 lecture series (now found in The Common Law (1909)), we must keep in mind that Holmes was writing in a time when the harsh rules of contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, and the fellow-servant doctrine were taking root in the law. These rules, which were once new, shiny principles designed to immunize entrepreneurs and businesses from liability at a time of early industrialization, have since weathered and fallen in the face of time, reason, and a growing intolerance for human suffering that has accompanied the post-industrial era. See Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 163 W.Va. 332 , 256 S.E.2d 879 (1979) (abolishing contributory negligence rule and adopting modified comparative negligence principles); King v. Kayak Mfg. Corp., 182 W.Va. 276 , 387 S.E.2d 511 (1989) (abolishing assumption of risk and adopting comparative assumption of risk); W. Va.Code, 23 — 1—1, et seq. (abrogating fellow-servant doctrine by providing workers’ compensation benefits to workers injured in the course of and as a result of their employment, including injuries by fellow employees).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“For example, if I have a yard sale to get rid of junk accumulating in my garage, and a neighbor comes into my garage to make a purchase, the neighbor is a business invitee. I owe the neighbor a duty of due care, and if the neighbor, exercising due care, gets hurt tripping over dangerous tools I carelessly forgot to remove from the walkway, I may be held responsible. But if that same' neighbor is coming intending to visit me, as he regularly does upon my standing invitation, and trips over the same tools, I won’t be liable because he is a licensee and I owe him no duty. As a licensee, he comes “upon the premises subject to all the dangers attending such [existing] conditions.” Cavender v. Fouty, 195 W.Va. 94, 98 , 464 S.E.2d 736, 740 (1995) (quoting Syllabus, Hamilton v. Brown, 157 W.Va. 910 , 207 S.E.2d 923 (1974)). This is silly. No one declines to clean the garage, shovel snow off a sidewalk, or fill in potholes in a yard with the licensee-invitee rule in mind.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.