Massino v. Smaglick’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1981
10 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 Brady v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. · Angelier v. Red Star Yeast & Products Co. · Nechodomu v. Lindstrom · James v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co. · Larson v. Equity Co-Operative Elevator Co.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`(1) ... that the former [possessor of real estate] maintained, or allowed to exist, upon his land, an artificial condition which was inherently dangerous to children being upon his premises .... "`(2) ... that he knew or should have known that children trespassed or were likely to trespass upon his premises .... "`(3) ... that he realized or should have realized that the structure erected or the artificial condition maintained by him was inherently dangerous to children and involved an unreasonable risk of serious bodily injury or death to them .... "`(4) ... that the injured child, because of his youth or tender age, did not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in going within the area, or in playing in close proximity to the inherently dangerous condition .... "`(5) ... that safeguards could reasonably have been provided which would have obviated the inherent danger without materially interfering with the purpose for which the artificial condition was maintained ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if “ (a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and “ (b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and “ (c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermed-dling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and “(d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and “(e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Some authorities interpret this language to mean that the condition or instrumentality must in and of itself be `highly dangerous' or ` per se dangerous.' Wisconsin, like many other states, uses the term `inherently dangerous.' We think they all mean the same thing.”
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.