Knowles v. Klase’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
10 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 2002 · most notably Lawrence v. Deemy (1969), Phillips v. Carson (1987)
10 district · 27 state decisions
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 Brick v. City of Wichita · Secrist v. Turley · Green v. Kaesler-Allen Lumber Co. · Evangelist v. Bellern Research Corporation · Bingham v. Hillcrest Bowl, Inc.
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[We] have often stated the duty of a proprietor toward a business invitee. He is not an insurer of the safety of his business invitee and the mere fact the latter slips and falls upon foreign material present on the floor of a retail establishment does not raise an inference of negligence (Relahan v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 145 Kan. 884 , 67 P.2d 538 ). “In Knowles v. Klase, 204 Kan. 156 , 460 P.2d 444 , we iterated these guidelines: ‘A proprietor must use ordinary care to keep those portions of the premises which can be expected to be used by business invitees in a reasonably safe condition. If an unsafe condition is created by the proprietor or those for whom he is responsible, or if it is traceable to their actions, proof of notice of the condition is unnecessary. When a dangerous condition is neither created by the proprietor or those for whom he is responsible, nor traceable to their actions, proof of negligence with respect to .a floor condition requires some showing they had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. A proprietor may be charged with constructive notice of the condition if the condition existed for such length of time that the proprietor, his agents or employees should have known of it in the exercise of ordinary care.’ (p. 157.) “Our recent case of Elrod v. Walls, Inc., 205 Kan. 808 , 473 P.2d 12 , involved a slip and fall in a supermarket. Plaintiff there fell on a lettuce leaf in a produce aisle in which other debris was observable. The ”
4 later decisions 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.