Chicago Ry Co v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1964 · most notably Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. (1957), Reed v. Director General of Railroads (1922)
2 federal appellate · 68 state decisions — followed in 23 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.
Relationships
Relies on Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton · Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. De Atley · Jacobs v. Southern Railway Co. · Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Proffitt · Erie Railroad v. Purucker
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Applying the principles settled by these decisions to the facts of this case, the testimony shows that Ward had neither warning nor opportunity to judge of the danger to which he was exposed by the failure of the engine foreman to cut off the cars. In the absence of notice to the contrary, and the record shows none, Ward had the right to act upon the belief that the usual method would be followed and the cars cut off at the proper time by the engine foreman, so that he might safely proceed to perform his duty as a switchman by setting the brake to check the cars which should have been detached. For .the lack of proper care on the part of the representative of the railway company while Ward was in the performance of his duty, he was suddenly precipitated from the front end of the ear by the abrupt checking resulting from the failure to make the disconnection. This situation did not make the doctrine of assumed risk a defense to an action for damages because of the negligent manner of operation which resulted in Ward’s injury, and the part of the charge complained of, though inaccurate, could have.worked no harm to the petitioners. It was. a sudden emergency, brought about by the negligent operation of that particular cut of cars, and not a condition of danger, resulting from the master’s or his representatives’ negligence, so obvious that an ordinarily prudent person in the situation in which Ward was placed, had opportunity to know and appreciate it, and thereby assume the r”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Federal Employers’ Liability Act places a co-employee’s negligence, when it is the ground of the action, in the same relation as that of the employer upon the matter of 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.