Crotty v. Eeading Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2006 · most notably 106 Wash. 2d 658 - Younce v. Ferguson (1986), 433 Pa. Super. 373 - Palange v. Philadelphia Law Dept. (1994)
2 federal appellate · 26 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 Rowland v. Christian · Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co. · Miller v. Hickey · Durning v. Hyman · De Reeder v. Travelers Insurance
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the ordinary case, an invitee who enters land is entitled to nothing more than knowledge of the conditions and dangers he will encounter if he comes. If he knows the actual conditions, and the activities carried on, and the dangers involved in either, he is free to make an intelligent choice as to whether the advantage to be gained is sufficient to justify him in incurring the risk by entering or remaining on the land. The possessor of the land may reasonably assume that he will protect himself by the exercise of ordinary care, or that he will voluntarily assume the risk of harm if he does not succeed in doing so. Reasonable care on the part of the possessor therefore does not ordinarily require precautions, or even warning, against dangers which are known to the visitor, or so obvious to him that he may be expected to discover them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mitchell v. Ankney“not only the duty not to injure him by unreasonably dangerous conduct while he is upon the premises, but also the affirmative duty to use reasonable care to discover unreasonably dangerous conditions of the premises and either put the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use in a manner consistent with the purpose of the invitation or warn him of the danger.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The occupier’s duty is one of due care under all the circumstances. That duty includes the duty to inspect the premises and to discover dangerous conditions, Durning v. Hyman, 286 Pa. 376 , 133 A. 568 (1926); and the duty to use care not to injure a business visitor by negligent activity. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 341 A (1965).”
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.