McDermott v. Severe’s Empirical Analysis
202 U.S. 600 · 1906
Citation profile
99 federal appellate · 14 district · 57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 225 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1997 · most notably Palmer v. Hoffman (1943), Boyd v. United States (1926)
99 federal appellate · 14 district · 57 state decisions — followed in 18 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Union Pac Ry Co v. McDonald · Kennon v. Gilmer · Richmond Co v. Powers · Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. Harmon's Administrator
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 225 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[7] “Negligence only becomes a question of law to -be taken from the jury when the facts are such that fair-minded men can only draw from them the inference that there was no negligence. If fair-minded men, -from the facts admitted, or conflicting testimony, may honestly draw different conclusions as to the negligence charged, tiie question is not one of law, but of fact, and to be settled 'by the jury under proper instructions. Railroad Company v. Powers, 149 U. S. 43 [ 13 Sup. Ct. 748 , 37 L. Ed. 642 ]; Railroad Company v. Everett, 153 U. S. 107 [ 14 Sup. Ct. 474 , 38 L. Ed. 373 ].””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Ifurthermore, an objection is taken to the charge as to mental suffering, past and future. It is objected that this instruction permits a recovery for future humiliation and embarrassment of mipd and feelings because of the loss of the leg. But we find no objection to the charge as given in this respect. The court said: ‘The jury are to consider mental suffering, past and future, found to be the necessary consequence of the loss of his leg.’ Where such mental suffering is a direct and necessary consequence of the physical injury, we think the jury may consider it. It is not unlikely that the court might have given more ample instruction in this respect had it been requested so to do. But what was said limited the compensation to the direct consequences of the physical injury.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The jury are instructed that, if they find a verdict for the plaintiff, they should render a verdict in his l'avor for such a sum (not exceeding the amount claimed in the declaration) as in their judgment will reasonably compensate him for the pain resulting from the injury and from the loss of his leg; for the inconvenience to which he has been put, and which he will be likely to be put, during the remainder of his life, in consequence of the loss of his. leg; for the mental suffering, past and future, which the jury may find to be the natural and necessary consequence of the loss of his leg; and for such pecuniary loss, as the direct result of the injury, which the jury may find from the evidence that he is reasonably likely to sustain hereafter In consequence of his being deprived of one of his legs.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.