Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 6 district · 35 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘When the employé does know of the defect (arising from the employer’s negligence), and appreciates the risk that is attributable to it, then if he continues in the employment, without objection, or without obtaining from the employer or Ms representative an assurance that the defect will be remedied, the employe assumes the risk, even though It arise out of the master’s breach of duty. If, however, there be a promise of reparation, then during such time as may be reasonably required for its performance, or until the par' ticular time specified for its performance, the employé, relying upon the proutise, does not assume the risk, unless at least the danger be so imminent that no ordinarily prudent man under the circumstances would rely upon such promise.’ ””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gold Hunter Mining & Smelting Co. v. Johnson · Lehigh Valley R. v. Skoczyla

2. ““To relieve the master from responsibility for injuries that may befall his servant while remaining at Ms work, in reliance upon a promise of reparation, there must bo something more than knowledge by the employs that danger confronts him, or that it is constant. The danger must, be imminent —immediately threatening — so as to render it clearly imprudent for him to confront it, even in the line of duty, pending the promise.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Bldg. Co. v. Waczak · Atlantic Corp. v. Harris

3. ““Where, as in the present ease, the injury was caused by the absence of a glass protector in front of a water gauge which burst, and the employee had continued after knowledge and promise of reparation, held, that the trial court did not err in refusing to hold, as matter of law, that the danger was so imminent that no ordinarily prudent man would continue the employment in reliance on the promise and that one so continuing did assume the risk. “Reasonable reliance by an employee on a promise of reparation and continuance in his employment for a ‘reasonable period pending performance cannot be regarded as contributory negligence as matter of law; the request and direction of the employer has a material bearing on the quest-on; and so held in this case that the question was properly submitted to the jury. “Authorities differ, and not yet decided by this court in this or prior cases, as to whether continuing the employment in presence of danger so imminent that no ordinarily prudent man would confront it, even where the employer has promised reparation, amounts to assumption of risk or contributory negligence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Highfill