Baldwin v. Hosley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 13 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In reviewing our many cases, we find a cloud of confusion. Several held it to have been proper to give a contributory negligence instruction where the youth was between seven and fourteen years old without referring to the question or effect of the presumption. And we have cases holding it proper to have given such an unconditional instruction where there was uncontradicted evidence that the injured child was unusually bright or had sufficient intelligence and discretion to understand that he was in danger of being struck while crossing a street. Trent v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 167 Ky. 319 , 180 S.W. 792, 793 ; Dixon v. Stringer, 277 Ky. 347 , 126 S.W.2d 448 ; Ward v. Music, Ky., 257 S.W.2d 516 . However, we have said in several cases that where there may be reasonable differences of opinion, the question of fact whether or not the child in the individual case was capable of contributory negligence should be submitted to the jury.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lareau v. Trader

2. ““A young child is not required to conform to the standard of behavior which it is reasonable to expect of an adult. A child may be so young as to be manifestly incapable of exercising any of those qualities of attention, intelligence and judgment which are necessary to enable him to perceive a risk or to realize its unreasonable character.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gallegos Ex Rel. Gallegos v. McKee