United States v. Praylou’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is generally impossible to establish with any certainty the cause of the falling of an airplane. To apply the res ipsa loquitur rule, as we did in the D’Anna case, supra, is, as stated, not very different from applying the rule of absolute liability; and for the law of a state to prescribe the latter instead of the former does not seem to us to remove the case from the liability which the government undertook to assume under the Tort Claims Act. On the contrary, it seems to us that it would be absolutely absurd to hold that the government is liable under the Tort Claims Act for the act of an employee who crashes into a house with a truck but not liable if he crashes into it with an airplane, and this on the theory that there is absolute liability under state law in the latter case but not in the former. The man on the street would never understand any such distinction; and in the minds of thoughtful lawyers it would do little credit to the law.” 208 F.2d 291 at 295 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lorick v. United States

2. ““In other words, the flight of an airplane at a proper altitude is recognized as lawful but the person operating it is charged with the responsibility of preventing injury to persons and property be neath. Not to prevent such injury, whether negligent or not, renders the person operating the plane liable at law on the theory that it was his duty under the law to prevent it if he undertook to operate the plane. As said by Judge Moore in Parcell v. United States, D.C., 104 F.Supp. 110, 116 , ‘To say that a tort giving rise to absolute liability is not a “wrongful act” would be a technical refinement of language incompatible with that liberal interpretation of the sovereign’s waiver of immunity which the highest court in the land has admonished us to employ. See United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 1949, 338 U.S. 366 , 70 S.Ct. 207 , 94 L.Ed. 171 ; United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 1950, 340 U.S. 543 , 71 S.Ct. 399 , 95 L.Ed. 523 .’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hahn v. U. S. Airlines, Inc.

3. ““§ 2-6. Liability for damages. — The owner of every aircraft which is operated over the land or waters of this State is absolutely liable for injuries to persons or property on the land or water beneath caused by ascent, descent or flight of the aircraft or the dropping or falling of any object therefrom, whether such owner was negligent or not, unless the injury is caused in whole or in part by the negligence of the person injured or of the owner or bailee of the property injured. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lorick v. United States