Pafford v. . Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably 106 N.C. App. 397 - Hoots v. Pryor (1992), Hood v. Queen City Coach Company (1959)
8 federal appellate · 68 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 Bennett v. Railroad Co. · Plummer v. Dill · Larmore v. . Crown Point Iron Co. · Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Means · Benson v. Baltimore Traction 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A license involves the idea of permission on the one side — its acceptance on the other. A licensee is rightfully on the property but this right depends on the licensor’s consent — consent that may be revoked at any time. He is doing what without such consent would be unlawful. The consent carries with it no more than the right to use the property in the condition in which it is found. No greater obligation is implied. A mere consent means no more. [Citation omitted.] H» ^ •}* “The owner or person in possession of property is ordinarily under no duty to make or keep property in a safe condition for the use of a licensee or to protect mere licensees from injury due to the condition of the property, or from damages incident to the ordinary uses to which the premises are subject. There is no duty to provide safeguards for licensees even though there are dangerous holes, pitfalls, obstructions or other conditions near to the part of the premises to which the permissive use extends. Neither is the owner or person in charge ordinarily under any duty to give licensees warning of concealed perils, although he might, by the exercise of reasonable care, have discovered the defect or danger which caused the injury. It follows that, as a general rule, the owner or person in charge of property, is not liable for injuries to licensees due to the condition of the property, or as it has been expressed, due to passive negligence or acts of omission. [Citations omitted.] The duty imposed is t”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““A licensee is a person who is neither a customer nor a servant nor a trespasser and does not stand in any contractual relation with the owner . . . and who is permitted, expressly or impliedly, to go thereon merely for his own interest, convenience or gratification. ...” Pafford v. Construction Co., 217 N.C. 730, 9 S.E. 2d 408 (1940).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.