Fehrman v. Smirl’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Buckelew v. Grossbard (1981), Wilkinson v. Vesey (1972)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 11 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Sanzari v. Rosenfeld · Hunt v. Bradshaw · Donaldson v. Maffucci · Danville Community Hospital, Inc. v. Thompson · Benson v. . Dean
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . the accident is of such a nature that it can be said, in the light of past experience, that it probably was the result of negligence by someone and that the defendant is probably the person who is responsible. . .” Fehrman v. Smirl, 20 Wis.2d 1, 25 , 121 N.W.2d 255 , 122 N.W.2d 439 (1963). “The procedural effect of res ipsa loquitur in Wisconsin is that of a permissible inference rather than rebuttable presumption, (citations omitted). As a permissible inference, the effect of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is merely to permit the jury to draw a reasonable inference from circumstantial evidence.” Fehrman, supra at 20 Wis.2d 21 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The requirement that the occurrence be one which ordinarily does not happen without negligence is of course only another way of stating a principle of circumstantial evidence, that the accident must be such that in the light of ordinary experience it gives rise to an inference that someone has been negligent. . . .” Prosser, Law of Torts (2d ed.), p. 202, sec. 42, cited in Fehrman v. Smirl, 20 Wis.2d 1, 25, 26 , 121 N.W.2d 255 (1963).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The general rule is that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be involved in medical malpractice actions only where a layman is able to say as a matter of common knowledge that the consequence of the professional treatment are not those which ordinarily result if due care is exercised and the doctrine is not applicable when expert medical testimony is required to show negligence on the part of the practitioner.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.