Dement v. Olin-Mathieson Chemical Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We agree with Dean Prosser’s statement. ‘Since the injured plaintiff almost never has any direct proof of what has occurred in the manufacturer’s plant, he usually must resort to circumstantial evidence. In the ordinary case, this means that he must rely upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. * * * ’ Prosser, Torts, § 84 at SOS. As this Court has pointed out, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ‘ * * * is simply a facet of the general law that verdicts may rest upon circumstantial evidence.’ Revlon, Inc. v. Buchanan, 5 Cir., 1959, 271 F.2d 795 , at page 799. See Prosser, Torts, § 42. “For the doctrine to be applicable, the plaintiff must have been injured by an instrumentality which, at the critical point in time, was within the defendant’s exclusive control. The critical point of time is not necessarily the precise time of injury. Rather, it obviously refers to the time the probable negligence inferred from the occurrence of the event took place. Ozark v. Wichita Manor, Inc., 5 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 671 , at page 675 (on rehearing, 5 Cir., 258 F.2d 805 ). If the casualty is a sort which in the ordinary course of things would not occur in the absence of negligence, an inference that it was due to the defendant’s negligence is allowable. Honea v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 1944, 143 Tex. 272 , 183 S.W.2d 968 , 160 A.L.R. 1445 ; Ozark v. Wichita Manor, Inc., supra. Thus, the theory is grounded upon the improbability of an accident occurring in the absence of negligence of the actor”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Texas Sling Company v. Emanuel

2. “in order for res ipsa to apply one particular force must be severed out, identified and held as a matter of law to be the cause of the premature explosion. The various components were manufactured to be a part of one combination. . . . Even in cases in which there is no combination as there obviously is here, the Texas courts recognize joint liability against actors completely independent and unrelated to each other in circumstances where their conduct has caused indivisible injury which cannot be accurately apportioned and identified by the plaintiff. Dement v. Olin-Mathieson Chemical Corp., 282 F.2d 76, 82 (5th Cir. 1960) (citation omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 345 F. Supp. 353 - Hall v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.

3. “"For res ipsa to apply, it is not necessary that as a matter of law the jury could reach no other conclusion except that the casualty was caused by a particular identified force. It is — as it always was — a question of fact. * * * * * * * * * "Nor it is necessary here that in order for res ipsa to apply one particular force must be severed out, identified and held as a matter of law to be the cause of the premature explosion. * * *"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 239 So. 2d 40 - Holman v. Ford Motor Company