Bell v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ 'In cases where the deviation is slight and not unusual, the court may, and often will, as matter of law, determine that the servant was still executing his master’s business. So, too, where the deviation is very marked and unusual, the court in like manner may determine that the servant was not on the master’s business at all, but on his own. Cases falling between these extremes will be regarded as involving merely a question of fact, to be left to the jury or other trier of such questions.’ * * * ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Massey v. Beacon Supply Company · Glass v. Davison

2. ““ ‘In Southwest Dairy Products Co. v. DeFrates (Tex.) [ 132 Tex. 556 , 125 S.W.2d 282 , 122 A.L.R. 854 ] * * * wherein a servant had departed from his duties in order to drive home for his supper, and an accident occurred while he was returning to take up his duties again, the court declared it was unable to adopt the proposition that when a servant has completed the purpose for which he departed from his master’s business and is returning to resume the duties of his employment, he is, while so returning, engaged in the master’s business and that the master is therefore liable for injuries caused by his negligence on the return trip. The court said that the master’s liability did not rest alone upon the purpose in the mind of the servant, and that the return was referable to and an inci dent of the departure. Moreover, the fact that the servant owed the duty to the master of returning the car and resuming his employment, and while returning to the zone of his employment was discharging that duty, was declared not to fix liability against the master. “ ‘Moreover, in the following cases, where a trip was from its inception entirely in the interests of the servant, the view has been taken that neither in the going nor in the returning was the driver acting within the scope of his employment so as to render the owner liable: “ ‘Alabama. — See also Mobile Pure Milk Co. v. Coleman, 1935, 230 Ala. 432 , 161 So. 829 , denying certiorari in 1935, 26 Ala.App. 402 , 161 So. 8267 ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hays v. Deaton Truck Line, Inc.

3. ““It is established in this jurisdiction that where there is an abandonment of the master’s business for personal reasons of the servant or agent in question, the employment is suspended and the master is not liable for the negligence of such agent or servant during such suspended employment and during the time of his departure from the master’s business. Each case must be ruled by its ‘own peculiar’ or particular facts, and when a servant has abandoned his employment by the master (Moore-Handley Hardware Co. v. Williams, 238 Ala. 189 , 189 So. 757 ), the mere fact that he is returning thereto, does not of itself reinstate the servant, agent or agency in his master’s employment and establish the engaging in the master’s business so as to subject the master to liability and for damages resulting after the departure and before the return is accomplished as of fact.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Southern Guaranty Insurance Company v. Jones