Lartigue v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.’s Empirical Analysis
317 F.2d 19 · 1963
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently July 2001 · most notably Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. (1973), Grigsby v. Coastal Marine Service of Texas, Inc. (1969)
41 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · Ultramares Corp. v. Touche · Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. · Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. · Spence v. Three Rivers Builders & Masonry Supply, 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The principle which governs in this case is that every one ought to know the qualities, good or bad, of the things which he fabricates in the exercise of the art, craft, or business of which he makes public profession, and that lack of such knowledge is imputed to him as a fault, which makes him liable to the purchasers of his fabrications for the damage resulting from the vices or defects thereof which he did not make known to them and which they were ignorant of.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Delictual responsibility without dolus (wilful harming) or culpa (negligent harming) is explainable in terms presumption of fault”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.