Hines v. Arrant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If every one injured in a railroad collision who could by looking and listening discover the approach of the train before going upon the track is to be charged with contributory negligence, it would be difficult to find an instance in which that defense would not be fully established. The situations are exceedingly rare in which travelers cannot, if they will,' ascertain whether or not it is safe to attempt a crossing. But the legal test is, not what the traveler could have done had he used his senses, but what an ordinarily prudent person would have done under the particular circumstances. Hence the courts have held that the failure to look and listen before going upon a railway track is not, as a matter of law, contributory negligence.” Trochta et al. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 218 S. W. 1038 ; Frugia v. T. & Ft. S. Ry. Co., 36 Tex. Civ. App. 648 , 82 S. W. 814 ; H. & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 60 Tex. 142 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Day · Hines v. Roan