2014 Pa. Super. 23 - Schemberg v. Smicherko’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 382 Pa. Super. 487 - Neff v. Lasso · 324 Pa. Super. 8 - Commonwealth v. Lumpkins · 2007 Pa. Super. 222 - Bombar v. West American Insurance Co. · 382 Pa. Super. 438 - Commonwealth v. Lyons · 366 Pa. Super. 149 - Mecca v. Lukasik
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Negligence per se is] conduct, whether of action or omission, which may be declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circumstances. Pennsylvania recognizes that a violation of a statute or ordinance may serve as the basis for negligence per se. However, a court will not use a statute or regulation as the basis of negligence per se where the purpose of the statute is to secure to individuals the enjoyment of rights or privileges to which they are entitled only as members of the public. In order to prove a claim based on negligence per se, the following four requirements must be met: (1) The purpose of the statute must be, at least in part, to protect the interest of a group of individuals, as opposed to the public generally; (2) The statute or regulation must clearly apply to the conduct of the defendant; (3) The defendant must violate the statute or regulation; (4)The violation of the statute or regulation must be the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries.”
3 later decisions 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.