Boldt v. Pennsylvania Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
245 U.S. 441 · 1918
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 1 district · 117 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 198 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. (1957), Arizona v. Anelich (1936)
56 federal appellate · 1 district · 117 state decisions — followed in 32 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedBoldt v. Pennsylvania R. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton · Gila Valley Globe Northern Railway Company v. John Hall · Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. De Atley · Jacobs v. Southern Railway Co.
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 198 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““At common law the rule is well settled that a servant assumes extraordinary risks incident to his employment or risks caused by the master’s negligence which are obvious or fully known and appreciated by him.” (p. 445.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It seems to us that § 4 [45 USCA § 54] in eliminating the defense of assumption of risk in the cases indicated, quite plainly evidences the legislative intent that in all other cases such assumption shall have its former effect as a complete bar to the action. And, taking §§ 3 and 4 [45 USOA §§ 53, 54] together, there is no doubt that Congress recognized the distinction between contributory negligence and assumption of risk; for, while it is declared that neither of these shall avail the carrier in cases where the violation of a statute has contributed to the injury or death of the employee, there is, with respect to cases not in this category, a limitation upon the effect that is to be givén to contributory negligence, while no corresponding limitation is imposed upon the defense of assumption of risk — perhaps none was deemed feasible. “The distinction, although simple, is sometimes overlooked. Contributory negligence involves the notion of some fault or breach of duty on the part of the employee; and since it is ordinarily his duty to take some precaution for his own safety when engaged in a hazardous occupation, contributory negligence is sometimes defined as a failure to use such care for his safety as ordinarily prudent employees in similar circumstances would use. On the other hand, the assumption of risk, even though the risk be obvious, may be free from any suggestion of fault or negligence on the part of the employee. The risks may be present, notwithstanding the e”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The risk held to have been assumed in the Horton Case certainly arose from negligence of some officer, agent or employee; and if the negligence of all these should be excluded in actions under the Employers’ Liability Act it is difficult to see what practical application could ever be given in them to the established doctrine concerning assumption of risk.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.