Summers v. Dominguez’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 1976
24 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 Smith v. Occidental & Oriental Steamship Co. · Tanforan v. Tanforan · Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Glens Falls Insurance Co. · 130 Cal. App. 510 - Potvin v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc. · 133 Cal. App. 747 - Bartlett v. Federal Outfitting Co., Inc.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Also the objection urged by appellant as to the second cause of action cannot be upheld. This particular cause of action was for a wilful breach of a statutory duty to render aid. As pointed out in American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, 2nd volume, in Tort, page 870, section 322, Comment d: ‘The liability which this Section recognizes is not imposed as a penalty for the actor’s original misconduct, but for a breach of a separate duty to aid and protect the other after his helpless condition caused by the actor’s misconduct is or should be known.’ “The comment further states that it is immaterial whether or not the accident was caused by the contributory negligence of the injured person, which would preclude a recovery for the original injury for any further harm suffered by the injured person due to exposure or neglect would be due to the tortious act of defendant, arising out of the violation of section 482 of the Vehicle Code, St.1935, p. 171. The wrongs of defendant were separate and distinct, one being a violation of a common-law duty, the other statutory, each independent of the other.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“, “The statute [section 564 of the Vehicle Code] only requires that a pedestrian walk upon the left-hand side of the roadway, and does not attempt to prescribe upon which side of the highway he may walk.” (Emphasis added; see also Lesser v. McCullough, 90 Cal.App.2d 586, 590 [ 203 P.2d 832 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rangel v. Badolato““No pedestrian shall walk upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district otherwise than close to his left hand edge of the roadway.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rangel v. Badolato
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.