Taylor v. Peck’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2019
1 federal appellate · 11 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 Thompson v. Bohlken · Valadez v. City of Des Moines · 67 N.J. Super. 305 - Miller v. Muscarelle · State v. Puckett · Craven v. Oggero
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) knowledge of the peril to be apprehended; (2) knowledge that injury is a probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger; and (3) a conscious failure to avoid the peril.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The test we articulated in Thompson to establish a co-employee's gross negligence is necessarily a stringent one because undesirable consequences could result from improvidently holding a co-employee liable to a fellow employee. As some commentators and courts have noted, when an employee is held liable to another the main cost of injury to an employee of a business could be unreasonably shifted from the employer, where the workers' compensation act places it, to a fellow employee, where the act does not place it. If the fellow employee who was held liable to a co-employee was indemnified by his or her employer, such an employer could be burdened with common law damages beyond the employer's statutory workers' compensation liability or with the expense of carrying insurance to cover the personal liability of all supervisory personnel. Therefore, in order to establish substantial evidence of gross negligence under section 85.20, all requirements of the test listed in Thompson must be met.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Defendant knew his order required plaintiff to work in close proximity to the unshielded PTO shaft and that injury was probable whenever working near, unshielded moving parts. This is evident in that defendant warned his crew to stay clear of the moving portions of the PTO. Despite the obvious danger associated with an unshielded PTO shaft, defendant instructed his crew to put weight on the auger....”
1 later decision 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.