Carter v. Yardley & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
91 federal appellate · 27 district · 132 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 273 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably Dalehite v. United States (1953), 32 Ill. 2d 612 - Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965)
91 federal appellate · 27 district · 132 state decisions — followed in 25 states
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 · Glanzer v. . Shepard · Thomas v. . Winchester · Liberatore v. Town of Framingham
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 273 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“caused the exception to swallow the asserted general rule of nonliability”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“In principle, a manufacturer or other person owning or controlling a thing that is dangerous in its nature or is in a dangerous condition, either to his knowledge or as a result or his want of reasonable care in manufacture or inspection, who deals with or disposes of that thing in a way that he foresees or in the exercise of reasonable care ought to foresee will probably carry that thing into contact with some person, known or unknown, who will probably be ignorant of the danger, owes a legal duty to every such person to use reasonable care to prevent injury to him. This statement of the principle conforms to the rule that a failure to take special precaution against a danger that is only remotely possible is not negligence”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““That case was decided in 1920, which was before the general abandonment of the old rule of non-liability where neither direct nor indirect privity existed. It is barely possible that had the court passed upon the question now before us, it might have upheld the old rule, even though weighted down with many exceptions. However, as there are no controlling Iowa decisions on the precise question before us for decision, we feel that we should not attribute to Iowa a doctrine that has been repudiated by most jurisdictions; we feel justified in concluding that the Supreme Court of Iowa would today adopt the modern rule, which is well expressed in Restatement of the Law of Torts, Sec. 395: ‘A manufacturer who fails to exercise reasonable care in the manufacture of a chattel which, unless carefully made, he should recognize as involving an unreasonable risk of causing substantial bodily harm to those who lawfully use it for a purpose for which it is manufactured and to those whom the supplier should expect to be in the vicinity of its probable use, is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to them by its lawful use in a manner and for a purpose for which it is manufactured.’ ””
2 later decisions 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.