23 Cal. 2d 288 - Crane v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 155 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 173 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably 69 Cal. 2d 782 - Johnson v. State of California (1968), 34 Cal. 3d 49 - Bigbee v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1983)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 155 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 8 Cal. 2d 126 - Tuttle v. Crawford · Goldstein v. Healy · Carlisle v. J. Weingarten, Inc. · 4 Cal. 2d 1 - Bellon v. Silver Gate Theatres, Inc. · Kataoka v. May Department Stores Co.
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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘ ‘ Generally, the owner of property ‘... is under a duty to keep in safe condition all portions of premises over which he has control’ (Sexton v. Brooks, 39 Cal.2d 153, 156 [ 245 P.2d 496 ]) and in more detail; ‘A possessor of land who knows, or reasonably should know, of a natural or artificial condition upon his premises which, he should foresee, exposes his business visitors to an unreasonable risk, and who has no basis for believing that they will discover the condition or realize the risk involved therein, is under a duty to exercise ordinary care either to make the condition reasonably safe for their use or to give a warning adequate to enable them to avoid the harm. ’ (Crane v. Smith, 23 Cal.2d 288, 296 [ 144 P.2d 356 ] ; see also Prosser on Torts, pp. 642 et seq.) ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““If a defendant’s conduct is such that a reasonable man would recognize that it involved a risk of harm to another person, the risk is unreasonable and the conduct is negligent if the risk is of such magnitude as to outweigh what the law regards as the usefulness of the conduct or the particular manner in which it is done. In measuring the usefulness of the conduct as against the magnitude of the risk involved in it, the extent of the chance that defendant’s interest can he adequately advanced or protected by another course of conduct must be considered.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““So too, a child taken by a mother or nurse to a shop is a business visitor; and this is so irrespective of whether it is necessary for the customer to take the child with her in order to visit the shop.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Weinberg v. Hartman
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.