Sanders v. Eilers’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 1987
9 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 Jackson v. Cook · Rottman v. Beverly · Jones v. Continental Casualty Co. of Chicago, Ill. · 192 So. 2d 679 - Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. · Brooks v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Plaintiff admits his own negligence, but claims that defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. He claims that Mr. King should have seen him sooner, and, had he done so, he would have been able to avoid the accident. "We cannot agree. We find the applicable law to have been expressed in the case of Sanders v. Eilers, 217 So.2d 205 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1968) as follows: "The rule is well established that one who operates a motor vehicle on public highways has a never ceasing duty to keep a sharp lookout ahead. A motorist is therefore held to have seen that which in the exercise of ordinary care he should have seen. Rottman v. Beverly, 183 La. 947 , 165 So. 153 ; Jackson v. Cook, 189 La. 860 , 181 So. 195 . Thus, though as a general rule a motorist may assume that the road ahead is safe for travel, he must when traveling after darkness or in circumstances of limited or impaired visibility observe and so control his vehicle as to avoid discernable objects in his path of travel; that is, in adverse conditions a greater degree of care must be exercised. Watkins v. Strickland Transportation Co. (1956), La.App., 90 So.2d 561 , and Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (1966), La.App., 192 So.2d 679 . This last rule however is subject to the well established exception that a night driver is not charged with the duty of guarding against unusual or unexpected obstructions which he had no reason to anticipate he would encounter on the highway and which ”
5 later decisions 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.