27 Cal. App. 2d 174 - Wallace v. King’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Undoubtedly it is the rule that one who is employed in a place where he is exposed to danger must exercise his faculties for his own protection; and if he approaches a place which he knows or ought to know is one of danger, he must take reasonable precautions to avoid being injured (Gleason v. Fire Protection Eng. Co., 127 Cal.App. 754, 757 [ 16 P.2d 750 ]); but while the degree of care required remains constant, the acts necessary to constitute such care may vary according to circumstances. (Henderson v. Los Angeles Traction Co., 150 Cal. 689 [ 89 P. 976 ].) Therefore, the question presented is whether a reasonably prudent man, situated as respondent was, seeing what he saw, and knowing what he knew, would have acted as respondent acted, and whether such conduct constituted care in proportion to the danger. If any act or omission on the part of respondent amounted to a want of ordinary care and was a proximate contributing cause of his injury, he cannot recover.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 137 Cal. App. 2d 437 - Vernon v. Owl Truck & Construction Co.