Odister v. Leach’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc. · 252 Ga. App. 735 - Dyer v. Honea · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Dunn · 212 Ga. App. 610 - Howell v. Farmers Peanut Market of Sowega, Inc. · 183 Ga. App. 564 - Byrd v. Rivenbark
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The general rule of law, that it is the duty of the master to exercise ordinary care and diligence in providing a reasonably safe place of work for his servants, does not apply to a case where the very work for which the servant is employed is of such a nature that its progress is constantly changing the conditions as regards an increase or diminution of safety. The hazards thus arising as the work proceeds must be regarded as being the ordinary dangers of the employment, and the servant necessarily assumes them. Thus, where the injured servant was [employed] for the express purpose of assisting in the repair, demolition, or alteration of some instrumentality, and the unsafe conditions from which the injury resulted arose from or were incidental to the work undertaken by him, the above-stated general rule is not applicable. 17”
2 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.