Hays v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““At the time of the accident our State Aeronautics Commission and the Federal Aeronautics Board had issued identical air traffic rules forbidding any person to ‘operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of others.’ * *■* [In Iowa such operation is forbidden by Statute 328.41, Code, 1954.] Each act forbids the violation of any rule or regulation issued under the other. * * * It seems to us from reading oicr act that the intent of our Legislature is clearly to place responsibility on the owner, even though he be without control, for the conduct of one to whom he entrusts the píame. The language is unequivocal and without qualification expressed or reasonably to be implied. * * * Accordingly we hold * * * causal violation of the state or federal statutes or any rules or regulations * * * by the pilot” would make the owner liable. (Emphasis supplied.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lamasters v. Snodgrass · 808 So. 2d 963 - Malone v. Capital Correctional Resources, Inc.

2. ““Section 7536-26(9) and (10), of the Mississippi Code, as amended, is as follows: * * * ‘Operation of aircraft’ or ‘operate aircraft’ means the use of aircraft for the purpose of air navigation, and includes the navigation or piloting of aircraft. Any person who causes or authorizes the operation of aircraft, whether with or without the right of legal control (in the capacity of owner, lessee, or otherwise) of the aircraft, shall be deemed to be engaged in the operation of aircraft within the meaning of the statutes of this state. * * * “It is the evident intent of the statute to protect the public from the negligence and financial irresponsibility of pilots. It does not say that one on the ground must assume the risk of being-hit by an airplane, but that the owner who authorizes the use of his airplane shall be deemed to be engaged in the operation thereof within the meaning of the statutes of Mississippi. * * * See also 49 U. S. C. A. §401(26), from which said Section 7536-26(9) was copied. “Sec..7536-12 of said Code of Mississippi makes it unlawful for any person to operate an aircraft in the air or on the ground or water, in a careless or reckless manner, so as to endanger the life or property of another; and the court in determin ing whether the operation was careless or reckless must consider also the standards of safe operation prescribed by federal statutes or regulations governing aeronautics. The primary standard for airplanes prescribed by federal statutes is caref”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lamasters v. Snodgrass

3. “... [F]rom the evidence that Fortney was guilty of negligence in the operation of the plane, which caused the accident... . ..... It is the evident intent of the statute to protect the public from any negligence and financial irresponsibility of pilots. It does not say that one on the ground must assume the risk of being hit by an airplane, but that the owner who authorizes the use of his airplane shall be deemed to be engaged in the operation thereof within the meaning of the statutes of Mississippi. ..... ... The primary standard for airplanes prescribed by federal statutes is careful operation so as not to endanger the life or property of another, which standard was found by the court below to have been violated by the pilot in this case. ( 221 F.2d at 482 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 377 So. 2d 1055 - Cannon v. Jones