Ebel v. Bruzewski’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 6 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. ““ ‘Ordinary prudence requires every person who is in the full enjoyment of his faculties of hearing and seeing, before attempting a dangerous act or operation, to exercise them for the purpose of discovering and avoiding the peril. He is bound to look and listen, and if he fails to do so he will be barred of recovery for injuries that he might have discovered and avoided. For example, to stand in the carriageway of a public street at night, engaged in conversation, heedless of horses and vehicles that are passing, is held to be such negligence as will prevent recovery for injuries resulting from being thrown down by a wagon the driver of which did not see the person injured. ’ 20 R. C. L. p. 113, citing Evans v. Adams Express Co., 122 Ind. 362 ( 23 N. E. 1039 , 7 L. R. A. 678). “There are exceptions to this rulé and one is where the nature or cause of his being in a place where, ordinarily, he should use his sense of sight, the surrounding circumstances are such as will reasonably distract his attention, such as in this case in answering the inquiry made by the police officer. See 20 E. C. L. p. 115. “In such case it cannot be said that the failure to look is negligence as a matter of law but, rather, a question of fact.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Batchelor v. Famous Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.