Carnes v. Weesner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 52 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Tichenor and Corbin , this court expanded the potential for finding a duty owed by possessors to invitees in the area of known or obvious dangers. Prior to these cases, possessors normally had no duty to invitees if the dangers were known and apparent to the invitees. However, in Tichenor , we adopted the rationale of the Restatement, supra, § 343 A, and comment /. of this section. Section 343 A at 218 states: “(1) A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them [the invitees], unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.” [Emphasis in original.] In Tichenor and in Corbin , we cited comment /.of § 343 A with approval: “ ‘ “There are, however, cases in which the possessor of land can and should anticipate that the dangerous condition will cause physical harm to the invitee notwithstanding its known or obvious danger. In such cases the possessor is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care which he owes to the invitee for his protection. This duty may require him to warn the invitee, or to take other reasonable steps to protect him, against the known or obvious condition or activity, if the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee will nevertheless suffer physical harm....” ’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hamernick v. Essex Dodge Ltd. · Burns v. Veterans of Foreign Wars

2. “In Tichenor and Corbin , this court expanded the potential for finding a duty owed by possessors to invitees in the area of known or obvious dangers. Prior to these cases, possessors normally had no duty to invitees if the dangers were known and apparent to the invitees. However, in Tichenor , we adopted the rationale of the Restatement, supra, § 343 A, and comment /. of this section. Section 343 A at 218 states: “(1) A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hamernick v. Essex Dodge Ltd.

3. “There was evidence that the parking lot was icy and snow-packed on the date that plaintiff slipped and fell and that this condition had developed over a period of time. There was also evidence that this ice and compacted snow could have been removed; that the application of salt, sand, or other abrasives would have improved traction in the lot; and that such abrasives were not applied. With regard to defendants’ knowledge of the lot’s condition, evidence was adduced to show that one of the defendants walked across the lot from his car to the building each workday and thus was on notice of the slippery conditions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fiscel v. Beach