Dahms v. General Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently April 2002 · most notably 49 Cal. 2d 647 - Biakanja v. Irving (1958), 69 Cal. 2d 850 - Connor v. Great Western Savings & Loan Ass'n (1968)
2 federal appellate · 76 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 Thomas v. . Winchester · Devlin v. . Smith · Means v. Southern California Railway Co. · Buckley v. Gray · Windram Manufacturing Co. v. Boston Blacking Co.
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although a machine may not be in its nature inherently dangerous, yet if it is made so by the neglect of a manufacturer having notice and knowledge that it is to be used by others than the purchaser, and injury results to others than the purchaser, directly traceable to that negligence, such manufacturer is liable to the person injured, because of that negligence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`the nature of a [manufactured] thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made....'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘If you find from the evidence that the defendant General Elevator Company did undertake to repair the elevator in the Wilson Building and certain machinery or appliances used in connection therewith, and if you further find that any such repairs were carelessly and/or negligently made so that said elevator was in an unsafe and dangerous condition for use on the 23rd day of April, 1927, and if you further find that said unsafe and/or dangerous condition, if any, was unknown to plaintiff Charles Dahms, and if you further find that any such unsafe or dangerous condition was the proximate cause of the alleged injuries to the plaintiff Charles Dahms, then I instruct you that your verdict must be against the General Elevator Company, a corporation, and in favor of the plaintiff, Charles Dahms. ’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wilson v. Zemen
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.