Koenig v. Patrick Construction Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably Soronen v. Olde Milford Inn, Inc. (1966), Wright v. Carter Products, Inc. (1957)
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 62 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 Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co. · Quigley v. . Thatcher · Teller v. Prospect Heights Hospital · Karpeles v. . Heine · Maleeny v. . Standard Shipbuilding Corp.
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Firmly established is the principle of law that a plaintiff’s carelessness is no bar to his recovery under a statute which imposes liability ‘regardless of negligence’. * * * Obviously, not every statute which commands or prohibits particular conduct is within this principle. Only when the statute is designed to protect a definite class of persons from a hazard of definable orbit, which they themselves are incapable of avoiding, is it deemed to create a statutory cause of action and to impose a liability unrelated to questions of negligence. This rule is based upon the view that, not being dependent upon proof of specific acts of negligence on defendant’s part, the cause of action may not be defeated by proof of plaintiff’s want of care. Thus, it has been said, ‘If the defendant’s negligence consists in the violation of a statute enacted to protect a class of persons from their inability to exercise self-protective care, a member of such class is not barred by his contributory negligence from recovery for bodily harm caused by the violation of such statute.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Workmen such as the present plaintiff, who ply their livelihoods on ladders and scaffolds, are scarcely in a position to protect themselves from accident. They usually have no choice but to work with the equipment at hand, though danger looms large.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“this statute is one for the protection of workmen from injury and undoubtedly is to be construed as liberally as may be for the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was thus framed”
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.