Baugh v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 4 district · 208 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 242 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[[Image here]] It has long since been determined that the purpose of the Legislature in enacting [the owner’s liabilii$*§tatute] was to change the common law rule of bailment and to impose upon the bailor-owner a liability for the imputed negligence of the operator, to whom he has entrusted the possession and control of his vehicle, which, as between the owner and the injured person, is direct and unconditional within the limits set. Defendants further argue in support of their contention that only when negligence of the operator is actionable against him is it imputable to the owner under [the owner’s liability statute], that the liability created by that section is analogous to that of a master for the acts of his servant under the doctrine of respondeat superior and “just as the liability of the master is dependent upon the liability of the servant so is the liability of the owner dependent upon the liability of his bailee.” However, from the limited analogy pointed out by the courts of this state, it does not follow that inappropriate incidents of the doctrine of respondeat superior can be attributed to the statutory relationship. In contending that the defendant Rogers’ negligence is nonactionable it is apparent that defendants use the term “nonactiona-ble” only in the limited sense that recovery for such negligence from the defendant Rogers by court action is barred by the Labor Code, in that by its provisions the employer’s sole liability for the employee’s injury is w”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Estate of Dean Ex Rel. Dean v. Air Exec, Inc.

2. ““ ‘. . . The peace of society, and of the families composing society, and a sound public policy, designed to subserve the repose of families and the best interest of society, forbid to the minor child a right to appear in court in the assertion of a claim to civil redress for personal injuries suffered at the hands of the parent.’ (20 R.C.L. 631.) “ ‘Any proceeding tending to bring discord into the family and disorganize its government may well be regarded as contrary to the common law, and not to be sanctioned by the courts. Such conflict would arise by recognizing the right of a minor to bring his personal action against the father to recover damages for torts alleged to have been committed by the father in the course of the family relation and resulting in personal injury to the child.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 140 Cal. App. 2d 536 - Perkins v. Robertson

3. ““. . . it is elementary in the law of bailments that a bailee is responsible in damages to the bailor for any injury to the bailed property resulting from a failure of the bailee to exercise a proper degree of care in protecting it. (See Milgate v. Wraith (1942), 19 Cal.2d 297, 303 [ 121 P.2d 10 ]; Brown v. Roland (1940), 40 Cal.App.2d Supp. 825 [ 104 P.2d 138 ].) ‘Where the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailee, he is bound to exercise great care or extraordinary diligence ’ (8 C.J.S. 280, § 29; see also, Civ. Code, § 1886); and “Where, through negligence of the bailee, bailed property in his hands is injured . . . the bailor is entitled to recover such a sum as will reasonably compensate him for the injury sustained . . .” (6 Am.Jur. 379, § 294; see, also, Civ. Code, § 1889.)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 102 Cal. App. 2d 849 - Hall v. Osell