253 Pa. Super. 474 - Zimmer v. Mitchell and Ness’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably 328 Pa. Super. 11 - Tyus v. Resta (1984), Zimmer v. Mitchell and Ness (1980)
76 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 Perry v. Payne · Dilks v. Flohr Chevrolet · 234 Pa. Super. 452 - Husak v. Berkel, Inc. · Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Greenville Business Men's Ass'n · 249 Pa. Super. 240 - Amabile v. Auto Kleen Car Wash
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““I understand that so-called safety bindings furnished herewith are releasable bindings designed to reduce the risk or degree of injuries from falling and that these bindings will not release under ALL circumstances and are no guarantee of my safety. I furthermore release Mitchell and Ness from any liability for damage and injury to myself or to any person or property resulting from the use of this equipment, accepting myself the full responsibility for any and all such damage or injury.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““In the instant case, the main exculpatory clause is the fourth paragraph of the agreement, releasing appellee ‘from any liability for damage and injury to. myself or to any person or property resulting from the use of this equipment . . . ’ To say that negligent conduct is not included in ‘any liability’ is patently incorrect. The dissent suggests a further tortured reading of the clause, and would hold that the alleged liability in this case did not accrue from ‘use of the equipment,’ but from appellee’s failure to inspect and fit the bindings for appellant. It is clear that the accident occurred while appellant was using the equipment and that appellant’s injury was at least compounded by the equipment’s failure to function as it should have.” 253 Pa. Super, at 480, 385 A.2d at 440 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The contract must not contravene any policy of the law. It must be a contract between individuals relating to their private affairs. Each party must be a free bargaining agent, not simply one drawn into an adhesion contract, with no recourse but to reject the entire transaction. In the instant case the validity of the agreement is apparent. However, to be enforceable, several additional standards must be met. First, we must construe the agreement strictly and against the party asserting it. Finally, the agreement must spell out the intent of the parties with the utmost particularity.”
1 later decision 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.