Mickle v. Blackmon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 83 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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Intended use” is but a convenient adaptation of the basic test of “reasonable foreseeability” framed to more specifically fit the factual situations out of which arise questions of a manufacturer’s liability for negligence. “Intended use” is not an inflexible formula to be apodictically applied to every case. Normally a seller or manufacturer is entitled to anticipate that the product he deals in will be used only for the purposes for which it is manufactured and sold; thus he is expected to reasonably foresee only injuries arising in the course of such use. However, he must also be expected to anticipate the environment which is normal for the use of his product and where, as here, that environment is the home, he must anticipate the reasonably foreseeable risks of the use of his product in such an environment. These are risks which are inherent in the proper use for which his product is manufactured. 308 F.2d at 83-84 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gardner v. Q. H. S., Inc. · James C. Gardner v. Q. H. S., Inc., a Corporation, and J. M. Fields, Inc., a Corporation

2. “[A]n automobile manufacturer knows with certainty that many users of his product will be involved in collisions, and that the incidence and extent of injury to them will frequently be determined by the placement, design and construction of such interior components as shafts, levers, knobs, handles and others. By ordinary negligence standards, a known risk of harm raises a duty of commensurate care.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Georgetown Steel Corporation Union Carbide Corporation v. Law Engineering Testing Company Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Inc · 83 Wash. 2d 751 - Baumgardner v. American Motors Corp.

3. ““They invoke the ancient common-law rule that, regardless of the intention of the parties, the release of one joint tortfeasor releases all. “This technical, often criticized rule, which rests upon the fiction, among others, that a release implies a satisfaction, has been the subject of much litigation in other jurisdictions. Courts and legislatures have been astute to mitigate its impact. The decided trend of modern authority is that the release of one tort-feasor does not release others who wrongfully contributed to plaintiff’s injuries unless this was the intention of the parties, or unless plaintiff has, in fact, received full compensation amounting to a satisfaction. Professor Prosser says that by virtue of statutes in some states and court decisions in others, this is the rule now actually applied in some two-thirds of the American jurisdictions. Prosser on Torts, 272 (3d ed.) See also Annotation, 73 A. L. R. (2d) 403. “No case in which this court has grappled with the problem has been cited, and we find none. We need not now either adopt or repudiate the controversial rule. We decline to give it novel application to the facts of this case, which do not involve a release from which the fiction of a satisfaction could be raised.” 252 S. C. at 224, 166 S. E. (2d) at 182 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bartholomew v. McCartha · Ecclesiastes Production Ministries v. Outparcel Associates, LLC