Kroger Co. v. Keng’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 86 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “allow[s] injured workers, whose employers subscribed to workers’ compensation insurance, to recover without establishing the employer’s fault and without regard to the employee’s negligence. In exchange, the employees received a lower, but more certain, recovery than would have been possible under the common law. Employers were, however, allowed to opt out of the system, resulting in their employees retaining their common-law rights. 2”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American International Specialty Lines Insurance v. Rentech Steel, L.L.C. · Lawrence v. CDB Services, Inc.

2. “(a)Except as provided by Subsections (b)and (c), this chapter applies to any cause of action based on tort in which a defendant, settling person, or responsible third party is found responsible for a percentage of the harm for which relief is sought. [[Image here]] (c)This chapter does not apply to: (1)an action to collect workers’ compensation benefits under the workers’ compensation laws of this state.... 10 In addition, § 33.003, titled “Determination of Percentage of Responsibility,” provides: The trier of fact, as to each cause of action asserted, shall determine the percentage of responsibility, stated in whole numbers, for the following persons with respect to each person’s causing or contributing to cause in any way the harm for which recovery of damages is sought, whether by negligent act or omission, by any defective or unreasonably dangerous product, by other conduct or activity that violates an applicable legal standard, or by any combination of these: (1) each claimant; (2) each defendant; (3) each settling person; and (4) each responsible third party who has been joined under Section 33.004. 11”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Russell v. Wendy's International, Inc.

3. “Contributory negligence contemplates an injured person’s failure to use ordinary care in regard to his or her own safety.... This affirmative defense requires proof that the plaintiff was negligent and that the plaintiffs negligence proximately caused his or her injuries .... Because comparative responsibility involves measuring the parties’ comparative fault in causing the plaintiffs injuries, it necessitates a preliminary finding that the plaintiff was in fact contributorily negligent.... Yet, section 406.033 prohibits this finding. It follows that by expressly precluding employers from relying on common-law contributory negligence, section 406.033 effectively prohibits an employer from relying on the statutory comparative-responsibility defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. De Leon v. Furr's Supermarkets, Inc.