Rzeszewski v. Barth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Plaintiff maintains that the trial court erred in giving the following instruction for the defendant: “ ‘If the jury believe from the evidence that the alleged injury was accidental and that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was negligent, the jury should find the defendant not guilty.’ “Substantially the same instruction was approved in City of Chicago v. Lavelle, 83 Ill. 482 ; Bentkowski v. Bryan, 299 Ill. App. 217 ; and Brown v. Richardson, 177 Ill. App. 488 . The giving of this instruction should be discouraged. The jurors are instructed on the issues of the case and this form of instruction tends to divert their attention from the issues. In the instant case defendant’s attorney made no contention that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The instruction complained of not only required the injury to be accidental, but also that ‘neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was negligent’ in order to justify acquittal. While we do not approve the giving of the instruction, we are of the opinion that it was so guarded that it could not harm plaintiff, and that the giving of it did not constitute reversible error.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 6 Ill. App. 2d 229 - Stone v. Warehouse & Terminal Cartage Co.

2. ““ ” Persons who have to act in a sudden emergency are not to be judged in the light of after events, but are to be judged, under all the circumstances of the case, by the standard of what a prudent person would have been likely to do under similar circumstances. Barnes v. Danville St. R. & Light Co., 235 Ill. 566 . The jury was required to determine whether defendant and Maroney were to be believed in their version of the occurrence and whether, accepting such version, defendant exercised due care. Where a person must act in an emergency it is for the jury to say whether he acted with that care and foresight which a reasonably careful and prudent driver would use in like circumstances. The question before the jury was purely one of fact. The reason why the defendant was on the wrong side of the highway was explained. There was evidence that tended to prove that defendant was not negligent even though his car did go over on the wrong side of the road. When there is evidence as to what actually happened, there is no room for presumptions. * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 86 Ill. App. 3d 677 - Polkey v. Phillips