Plotzki v. Standard Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2004 · most notably Neal, Admr. v. Home Builders, Inc. (1953), Barbre v. Indianapolis Water Co. (1980)
31 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 Railroad Company v. Stout · Union Pac Ry Co v. McDonald · United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt · City of Pekin v. McMahon · Baltimore Ohio R. Co. v. Reyher, Admx.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... The doctrine of attractive nuisance, it has been said, is limited in its application to cases where the danger is latent, and affords no basis for a recovery where the injury complained of was produced by a peril of an obvious or patent character. A danger which is not only obvious but natural, considering the instrumentality from which it arises, is not within the meaning of the attractive nuisance doctrine, for the reason that an owner or occupant is entitled to assume that the parents or guardians of a child will have warned him to avoid such a peril. Pits and excavations on land embody no dangers that are not readily apparent to everyone, even very young children. For this reason, the proprietor is under no obligation, as a rule, to fence or otherwise guard such places, and he will not be liable for injuries to children who may have fallen therein."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The cases last cited all recognize the rule that children of tender years are not to be treated as persons of mature years. This is a reasonable and humane rule, and any other would be a cruel reproach to the law; but the law merits no such reproach, for, throughout all its branches, whether of tort or contract, there runs ... a line distinguishing children of years too few to have judgment or discretion, from those old enough to possess and exercise those faculties. This is a doctrine taught by every man’s experience and sanctioned by our law. A departure from it would shock every one’s sense of justice and humanity.” The Indianapolis, Peru and Chicago Railway Company v . Pitzer (1886), 109 Ind. 179, 183 , 6 N. E. 310 , 10 N. E. 710 , 58 Am. Rep. 387 , and many authorities there cited.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““However, it is not an open question in this State that ah individual or corporation is liable for injuries to a child non sui juris caused by leaving unguarded and exposed machinery or surroundings, which are of such a nature and character as to naturally tempt and allure children to play with or otherwise use the same. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fox (1906), 38 Ind. App. 268 , 70 N. E. 81 ; 1 Thornton, Negligence §435; Lewis v. Cleveland, etc. R. Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 337 , 84 N. E. 23 .” City of Indianapolis v. Williams (1915), 58 Ind. App. 447, 454 , 108 N. E. 387 . See, also cases cited in Plotzki v. Standard Oil Co. (1950), Dissent, 228 Ind., pp. 527, 532, 533..”
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.