Phillips v. D'Amico’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"From these cases we draw the conclusion that a parent is liable if his minor child, old enough to be guilty of negligence, causes damage by using a dangerous instrumentality under circumstances under which there is reason to believe that damage may result, and that even if the instrumentality is not inherently dangerous, nevertheless there is liability on the part of the parent if the child uses it in a negligent or careless manner. "Of course, if the instrumentality is not inherently dangerous and there is no negligence in the manner of its use, then there is no liability even though, because of accident, damage is caused to some one else. As recognizing this rule, we cite Toca v. Rojas, 152 La. 317 , 93 So. 108 and Wagner v. Barbin, 12 La.App. 640 , 125 So. 766 . "In the first of these cases, Toca v. Rojas, young Rojas had been fishing. He had a fishing line and pole in his hand and, apparently, was winding the line around the pole by swinging it in the air. He was on a pathway which though `frequently used by pedestrians, * * * was not designed for, nor was it regarded as, a public thoroughfare.' ( 152 La. 317 , 93 So. 112 .) "The Court held that a fishing rod and line is not inherently dangerous and that under the circumstances there was nothing careless in the manner in which young Rojas had handled it, and that, therefore, there was no liability. "In the second of the two cases just above cited, a `sling-shot' was involved. It was being used by a young boy 14 years of ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cruz Rivera v. Rivera · Fabre v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company

2. “"While neither Article 2317 nor Article 2318, both of which are already quoted, contains the word `fault' or the word `negligence', never, so far as we know, has either been interpreted as creating liability unless there is fault or negligence on the part of someone; either on the part of persons `for whom we are answerable' under Art. 2317, or on the part of `minor or unemancipated children' for whose acts the father or the mother is answerable under Art. 2318. If there is liability in a father for damage caused by his minor son in using an air gun, there must be fault on the part of some one either on the part of the father in permitting his son to use the gun or in the minor in using a dangerous instrumentality under circumstances which render it probable that damage may result, or, if it be an instrumentality which is not in itself dangerous, then in using it negligently or carelessly."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 220 So. 2d 104 - Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

3. “"The father, or after his decease, the mother, are responsible for the damage occasioned by their minor or unemancipated children, residing with them, or placed by them under the care of other persons, reserving to them recourse against those persons."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 220 So. 2d 104 - Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co.