Bowers v. Ottenad’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 6 district · 29 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Appellant raises several issues, only two of which require consideration here. First, appellant contends that this court should abandon the common-law premises doctrine which establishes liability of a landowner or occupier of real property based upon the status of the injured party and adopt the traditional negligence standard of reasonable care under all the existing circumstances, at least to the extent of adopting such standard for licensees. Second, it is asserted that if this court does not consider it appropriate to abandon the existing premises doctrine we should follow the active negligence exception recognized by this court in Montague v. Burgerhoff, 150 Kan. 217 , 92 P.2d 98 (1939). "As to the first issue, whether we should abandon the common-law doctrine of premises liability based upon the status of the injured party as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee, much has been written in recent years. This court has been asked on at least four occasions to abandon the premises liability or status classification doctrine of landowner or occupier liability and on each occasion a majority of the court has declined to do so. Britt v. Allen County Community Jr. College, 230 Kan. 502 , 638 P.2d 914 (1982); Zuther v. Schild, 224 Kan. 528 , 581 P.2d 385 (1978); Gerchberg v. Loney, 223 Kan. 446 , 576 P.2d 593 (1978); Frazee v. St. Louis-San Francisco Rly. Co., 219 Kan. 661 , 549 P.2d 561 (1976). We see nothing to be gained by rehashing the pros and cons of the argument as they a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. Hansen

2. “"We recognize that there will be instances when it will be difficult to determine whether the alleged negligence falls within the area of an activity carried on by the occupier of the property or is due to the condition of the premises. However, the fact that some cases may be difficult for determination is no justification for refusing to recognize a proper rule of law. Our prior cases, including Britt v. Allen County Community Jr. College, 230 Kan. 502 ; and Gerchberg v. Loney, 223 Kan. 446 , are overruled to the extent that they are inconsistent with the views expressed in this opinion." (Emphasis added.) 240 Kan. 222 -23.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. Hansen

3. “If an owner, while the licensee is upon the premises in the exercise of due care, is affirmatively and actively negligent in the management of his property or business, as a result of which the licensee is subjected to increased hazard and danger, the owner will be liable for injuries sustained, as a result of such active and affirmative negligence ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guinn v. Murphy