Codling v. Paglia’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 3 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 240 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 85 Ill. 2d 1 - Alvis v. Ribar (1981), West v. Caterpillar Tractor Company, Inc. (1976)
59 federal appellate · 3 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Webb v. Zern · Elmore v. American Motors Corp. · Piercefield v. Remington Arms Co. · 11 Ariz. App. 188 - Caruth v. Mariani · Maiorino v. Weco Products 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 240 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the defect was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury or damages; provided: '(1) that at the time of the occurrence the product is being used ... for the purpose and in the manner normally intended, (2) that if the person injured or damaged is himself the user of the product he would not by the exercise of reasonable care have both discovered the defect and perceived its danger, and (3) that by the exercise of reasonable care the person injured or damaged would not otherwise have averted his injury or damages.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Today as never before the product in the hands of the consumer is often a most sophisticated and even mysterious article. Not only does it usually emerge as a sealed unit with an alluring exterior rather than as a visible assembly of component parts, but its functional validity and usefulness often depend on the application of electronic, chemical or hydraulic principles far beyond the ken of the average consumer. Advances in the technologies of materials, of processes, of operational means have put it almost entirely out of the reach of the consumer to comprehend why or how the article operates, and thus even farther out of his reach to detect when there may be a defect or a danger present in its design or manufacture. In today's world, it is often only the manufacturer who can fairly be said to know and to understand when an article is suitably designed and safely made for its intended purpose. Once floated on the market, many articles in a very real practical sense defy detection of defect, except possibly in the hands of an expert after laborious and perhaps even destructive disassembly... ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'where the manufacturer could reasonably contemplate injury to such persons by reason of the defect'”
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.