216 W. Va. 175 - Strahin v. Cleavenger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 24 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[d]uty is not, however, an inflexible principle since "[i]t is not absolute, but is always relative to some circumstance of time, place, manner, or person." Syl. Pt. 1, in part, Dicken v. Liverpool Salt & Coal Co., 41 W.Va. 511 , 23 S.E. 582 (1895). Moreover, we have found that: [t]he ultimate test of the existence of a duty to use care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if it is not exercised. The test is, would the ordinary man in the defendant's position, knowing what he knew or should have known, anticipate that harm of the general nature of that suffered was likely to result? Syl. Pt. 3, Sewell v. Gregory, 179 W.Va. 585 , 371 S.E.2d 82 (1988).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Old White Charities, Inc. v. Bankers Ins., LLC · Stacy Stevens v. MTR Gaming Group, Inc.

2. “'evaluate more generally whether the category of negligent conduct at issue is sufficiently likely to result in the kind of harm experienced that liability may appropriately be imposed on the negligent party.'”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Estate of Zachary D. Staggs by and through his Personal Rep., Denise Coulter v. ADS Logistics Co., LLC · April Goodwin, Tiffany Randolph and Javon Washington v. Yeakle's Sports Bar and Grill, Inc.

3. “a court's overall purpose in its consideration of foreseeability in conjunction with the duty owed is to discern in general terms whether the type of conduct at issue is sufficiently likely to result in the kind of harm experienced based on the evidence presented. If the court determines that disputed facts related to foreseeability, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to support foreseeability, resolution of the disputed facts is a jury question. The jury has the more specific job of considering the likelihood or foreseeability of the injury sustained under the particular facts of the case in order to decide whether the defendant was negligent in that his or her conduct fell within the scope of the duty defined by the court. "`"`"Questions of negligence . . . present issues of fact for jury determination when the evidence pertaining to such issues is conflicting or where the facts, even though undisputed, are such that reasonable men may draw different conclusions from them." Syl. Pt. 1, Ratlief v. Yokum, [ 167 W.Va. 779 ], 280 S.E.2d 584 (W.Va.1981), quoting syl. Pt. 5, Hatten v. Mason Realty Co., 148 W.Va. 380 , 135 S.E.2d 236 (1964).' Syllabus Point 6, McAllister v. Weirton Hosp. Co., 173 W.Va. 75 , 312 S.E.2d 738 (1983)." Syl. Pt. 17, Anderson v. Moulder, 183 W.Va. 77 , 394 S.E.2d 61 (1990).' Syl. Pt. 1, Waugh v. Traxler, 186 W.Va. 355 , 412 S.E.2d 756 (1991)." Syl. Pt. 2, in part, Johnson v. Mays, 191 W.Va. 628 , 447 S.E.2d 563 (1994); se”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marcus v. Staubs ex rel. Staubs · 222 W. Va. 560 - Neely v. Belk Inc.