Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 Mo. App. 902 - Bobbitt v. Salamander

240 Mo. App. 902 - Bobbitt v. Salamander’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 1989

16 state decisions

6019491950196019701980decided

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 McCloskey Ex Rel. McCloskey v. Koplar · Harke v. Haase · Tabler v. Perry · 233 Mo. App. 312 - Hart v. Emery-Bird-Thayer Dry Goods Co. · Price v. McDonald

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The rule of res ipsa loquitur applies when ‘(a) the occurrence resulting in injury was such as does not ordinarily happen if those in charge use due care; (b) the instrumentalities involved were under the management and control of the defendant; (c) and the defendant possesses superior knowledge or means of information as to the cause of the occurrence.’ McCloskey v. Koplar, 329 Mo. 527 , 46 S.W.2d 557, 559 , 92 A.L.R. 641 . [[Image here]] When an automobile is parked parallel to the curb of a street where the grade is steep, certainly no proof is required of the effect of gravity upon it when released of effective restraints. When an automobile is so parked and it later proceeds driverless and unattended down the hill to the injury of persons and property, the presumption is that he who parked the car applied insufficient or ineffectual methods to hold it in place. He may not have supplied the car with adequate brakes, or he may not have securely set the brakes, or have failed to set the car in gear, or have failed to turn the right front wheel sufficiently into the curb, or overlooked the use of any one or more of such cautionary and usual methods as required. Failure to park the car securely when on a hill, may, by reason of the vibration caused by passing traffic, cause it to be released and become a great menace to the public, as suggested in Vaughn v. Meier, Mo.Sup., 246 S.W. 279 . The operator is in a peculiar position to. know what, if any, of the effective methods h”
    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.