Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 266 N.C. 564 - Rodgers v. Carter

Rodgers v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
4
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably 98 Ill. 2d 391 - Mort v. Walter (1983), Gregory v. Lynch (1967)

3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

1701966197019801990200020102020decided

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 Wagner v. International Railway Co. · Riddle v. Artis · Harton v. . Telephone Co. · Rodgers v. Thompson · Price v. Burton

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

  1. ““The doctrine of sudden emergency is simply that one confronted, with an emergency is not liable for an injury resulting from his acting as a reasonable man might act in such an emergency. If he does so, he is not liable for failure to follow a course which calm, detached reflection at a later date would recognize to have been a wiser choice. . . .””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘(1) In determining whether conduct is negligent toward another, the fact that the actor is confronted with a sudden emergency which requires rapid decision is a factor in determining the reasonable character of his choice of action. “‘(2) The fact that the actor is. not negligent after the emergency has arisen does not preclude his liability for his tortious conduct which has produced the emergency. “ ‘Where the emergency itself has been created by the actor’s own negligence or other tortious conduct, the fact that he has then behaved in a manner entirely reasonable in the light of the situation with which he is confronted does not insulate his liability for his prior conduct. Such liability is not precluded by the fact that he has acted reasonably in the crisis which he has himself brought about. It is not his reasonable conduct in the emergency which makes him liable, but his prior tortious conduct creating the emergency.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The doctrine of sudden emergency is simply that one confronted with an emergency is not liable for an injury resulting from . . . acting as a reasonable [person] might act in such an emergency. If [one] does so, he [or she] is not liable for failure to. follow a course which calm, detached reflection at a later date would recognize to have been a wise choice. That one was faced with an emergency before the injury occurred does not, however, necessarily shield [one] from liability. He [or she] must still act, after being confronted with the emergency, as a reasonable person so confronted would then act. The emergency is merely a fact to be taken into account in determining whether he [or she] has acted as a reasonable [person] so situated would have done.”
    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.