Hardwick v. Bublitz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * We cannot reasonably hold that the use of the words `owner or operator' meant owner-operator, but must hold they in fact contemplated and intended to protect both the owner and the operator from all liability due to ordinary negligence of either and to hold both liable to the guest for damages suffered, when it is alleged and proven that the operator drove recklessly or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. We cannot reduce the protection to include only an owner-operator without doing violence to the clear expression of the statute, * * * Obviously such a conclusion would not square with the intention expressed by our statute, nor with the reasonable and logical purpose that we have announced was the legislative intendment. [Citations omitted.] * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rodgers v. Freborg

2. “Protection, rightly, or wrongly granted these parties in guest cases by the legislature's clear directive, cannot be removed by fine distinctions as to how the owner may be found negligent, whether by negligent entrustment, negligent maintenance of the vehicle, imputed negligence or by some other violation not involved in the actual use of the vehicle. In all cases where the guest is the injured party liability is reduced and no recovery against the owner or operator can be obtained under an allegation of mere negligence against either or both. We can give the statute no other meaning, nor subscribe to the legislature any other intent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Robe v. Ager

3. ““Thus, in line with our rule of liberal construction of this statute for the protection of ‘the owner or operator of a motor vehicle’, we have in effect created a presumption, rebuttable, that an occupant riding in a ear operated by another person is a guest within the meaning of section 321.494, and has the burden of proving otherwise in an action predicated upon negligence of the operator or owner.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nielsen v. Kohlstedt