Riddle v. Artis’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co. (1984), Lockwood v. McCaskill (1964)
3 federal appellate · 66 state decisions
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 Aldridge Ex Rel. Aldridge v. Hasty · Butner v. . Spease · Butner v. Spease · Hall v. Coble Dairies, Inc. · Riggs v. Akers Motor Lines, Inc.
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is elemental that there may be two or more proximate- causes of an injury. These may originate from separate and distinct sources or agencies operating independently of each other; yet if they join and concur in producing the result complained of, the author of each cause may be held liable for the injuries inflicted, * *.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘The test by which the negligent conduct of one is to be insulated as a matter of law by the independent negligent act of another[] is reasonable unforeseeability on the part of the original actor of the subsequent intervening act and resultant injury.’ ” [Butner v. Spease, 217 N.C. 82 , 89, 6 S.E.2d 808, 812 (1939).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is immaterial how many new events or forces have been introduced if the original cause remains operative and in force. In order for the conduct of the intervening agent to break the sequence of events and stay the operative force of the negligence of the original wrongdoer, the intervening conduct must be of such nature and kind that the original wrongdoer had no reasonable ground to anticipate it. . . . “The test by which the negligent conduct of one is to be insulated as a matter of law by the independent negligent act of another, is reasonable unforeseeability on the part of the original actor of the subsequent intervening act and resultant injury.” . . . In 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, Sec. 67, pp. 722 and 723, the principle is stated this way: “In order to be effective as a cause superseding prior negligence, the new, independent, intervening cause must be one not produced by the wrongful act or omission, but independent of it, and adequate to bring about the injurious result; a cause which interrupts the natural sequence of events, turns aside their cause, prevents the natural and probable result of the original act or omission, and produces a different result, that reasonably might not have been anticipated.””
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.