Endre v. Arnold’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Pryzbowski v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc. (2001), 144 N.C. App. 200 - Kearns v. Horsley (2001)
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 16 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 Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of City of Newark · Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors · Kelly v. Gwinnell · Wytupeck v. City of Camden
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty by defendant; and (3) an injury to plaintiff proximately caused by defendant's breach.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“The law as to the duty a host owes to a social guest who is at peril due to an injury sustained on the host's premises is not as well settled. We have not been able to unearth any reported decisional law in this state precisely on point. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that a host has a duty to come to the aid of a social guest who the host knows or has reason to know is in serious physical peril due to an accident that occurred on the host's premises. The duty, however, only requires the host to give such assistance as the host reasonably can and to take reasonable action to turn the injured person over to those qualified to care for the guest. . . . . More succinctly, "[t]he inquiry [as to whether a duty exists] involves a weighing of the relationship of the parties, the nature of the risk, and the public interest in the proposed solution." Kelly, supra, 96 N.J. at 544 [ 476 A. 2d 1219 ] (quoting Goldberg, supra, 38 N.J. at 583 [ 186 A. 2d 291 ]). Employing that weighing process, we are satisfied that the common law, particularly in light of the special relationship between a host and a guest, imposes on a host a duty to come to the aid of a social guest who has seriously injured himself or herself on the host's premises even though the injury was sustained through no fault of the host. [ Id. at 143-44, 692 A. 2d 97 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We are unable to say that a substantial risk of injury is implicit, or inherent, in [General Cinemas’ providing carpet for patrons to walk on. Carpets] are not dangerous instrumentalities, and they are uniquely suitable for the purpose for which furnished. [General Cinemas’ theatre] was under a legal duty of exercising ordinary care to furnish a reasonably safe place and safe equipment for its patrons consistent with its operation and the scope of its invitation. It is not an insurer for the safety of its patrons. The issue is not merely whether it was foreseeable that patrons, or other third parties, would negligently or intentionally [trip over the carpet — where torn], but whether a duty exists to take measures to guard against such happenings. . . . [Nevertheless, where] a duty exists is ultimately a question of fairness. . . .”
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.