Baker v. Maseeh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 37 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rule that proof of ownership makes out a prima facie casé-is based upon the best of reasons. When an owner’s car is being - driven by another, that fact is presumably within the knowledge of the owner, and he can readily show that the vehicle was not being-driven for him, if such be the fact . . . One who is damaged, either-in person or in property, by an automobile negligently operated by some person other than the owner, is usually without information as-; to the relation between the driver and the owner. If he be required’, to make affirmative proof of the relation, he might never be able to-do so, however just and meritorious a case he might have on account of the negligent operation of the vehicle. “On the other hand, if it be held, upon proof of ownership and’ negligence, that the burden shifts to the defendant owner to prove-that the car was being driven at the time of the accident by a stranger, or on an errand not connected with the owner’s business, the one having a just and meritorious case is protected, and no hardship is: imposed upon the owner. “The courts are not entirely in accord upon the proposition that proof of ownership makes out a prima facie case. The opposite view is taken in several cases. (Citations.) “In this jurisdiction, however, the question presents a case of first impression, and, for the reasons above given, we have adopted the more liberal rule, and we hold that proof of ownership is prima facie evidence that the driver of a vehicle caus”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lotti v. Charles McCormick Lumber Co.

2. ““The rule that proof of ownership makes out a prima facie case is based upon the best of reasons. When an owner’s car is being driven by another, that fact is presumably within the knowledge of the owner, and he can readily show that the vehicle was not being driven for him, if such be the fact. . . . One who is damaged, ... by an automobile negligently operated by some person other than the owner, is usually without information as to the relation between the driver and the owner. If he be required to make affirmative proof of the relation, he might, never be able to do so. . . . “On the other hand, if it be held, upon proof of ownership and negligence, that the burden shifts to the defendant owner to prove that the car was being driven ... on an errand not connected with the owner’s business, the one having a just and meritorious case is protected, and no hardship is imposed upon the owner. ... “The presumption of use and control arising from proof of ownership is not conclusive. It has the effect, however, to cast the burden of proof on the owner to show, if he can, that the negligent driver was not his servant or agent, or, if such servant or agent, he was not at the time using the vehicle in the business of the owner.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Otero v. Soto Ex Rel. Gonzales

3. ““Plaintiff argues that the motion for a directed verdict was properly denied for the reason that proof of the fact that defendant owned’ the automobile which caused the damage was prima facie evidence that the vehicle was being driven for him and in his business, and in this contention we think plaintiff is correct. In the standard work of Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, vol. 1, par. 158, it is stated: “ 'When plaintiff has suffered injury from the negligent management of a vehicle such as a boat, car or carriage, it is sufficient prima facie evidence that the negligence was imputable to the defendant to show that he was the owner of the thing without proving affirmatively that the person in charge was the defendant’s servant. It lies with the defendant to show that the person in charge was not. his servant, leaving him to show, if he can, that the property was not under his control at the time and that the accident was occasioned by the fault of a stranger, an independent contractor or other person for whose negligence the owner would not be answerable.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lotti v. Charles McCormick Lumber Co.