Washewich v. LeFave’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2002
3 federal appellate · 13 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 C. F. Hamblen, Inc. v. Owens · 103 So. 2d 635 - Chomont v. Ward · Wise v. Carter · 75 Wash. 2d 494 - Scott v. Rainbow Ambulance Service, Inc. · 200 So. 2d 616 - Hollie v. Radcliffe
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... where the evidence reveals two successive accidents, and the defendant is only responsible for the second accident, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove to the extent reasonably possible what injuries were proximately caused by each of the two accidents. The jury should be instructed to make an apportionment of the damages as between the two accidents insofar as it may be reasonably possible to do so, but if an apportionment is impossible, the jury may be authorized to charge the defendant with all damages flowing from the entire injury.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is settled law that where injuries aggravate an existing ailment or develop a latent one the person whose negligence caused the injury is required to respond in damages for the results of the disease as well as the original injury. In such cases the injury is the prime cause which opens the way to and sets in motion the other cause and the latter cannot be regarded as an independent cause of injury, nor can the wrongdoer be allowed to apportion the measure of responsibility to the initial cause. The defendant must respond in damages for such part of the diseased condition as his negligence has caused and if there can be no apportionment, or it cannot be said that the disease would have existed apart from the injury, then he is responsible for the diseased condition. 8 R.C.L. 437.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rule of Hamblen v. Owens has as its purpose the prevention of a subsequent wrongdoer from escaping responsibility where his conduct contributed to the creation of the situation in which the problems of apportionment arose.”
3 later decisions 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.