22 Conn. Super. Ct. 71 - Green v. Britton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is not alleged in the complaint in so many words that the plaintiff was in danger, or believed she was in danger, or that anyone was in danger. However, the duty to use due care is bounded by the foreseeable range of danger. Harper & James, Law of Torts § 18.8. The negligent failure to properly brake an automobile in a parking lot, on an incline, involves a realizable and an unreasonable risk of causing harm to a class of persons of which the plaintiff was a member. Those using the parking lot and those approaching the parking lot in its driveway were among the persons affected. “In their brief defendants urge that the plaintiff Caroline Green is a complete volunteer, and that the so-called ‘rescue doctrine’ is not before the court. This claim is not well founded. The demurrer admits the well-pleaded facts that the Britton automobile was negligently parked, not braked, and that it rolled down the incline in the parking lot, in the direction of the plaintiffs car. The plaintiff responded to this situation. ‘Danger invites rescue.’ ‘The act, whether impulsive or deliberate, is the child of the occasion.’ (Cardozo, J.) Wagner v. International Ry. Co., 232 N.Y. 176, 181 , 133 N.E. 437 , 19 A.L.R. 1 [ (1921) ]; Zeechin v. Cornelio, 17 Conn. Supp. 20 [ (1950) ]; Restatement, 2 Torts §§ 442-445.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Simmons v. Carwell