Franklin v. Lowe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 2 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The so-called rescue doctrine does not affect the ordinary standard of care. The doctrine merely indicates that, where an attempt is being made to save human life or property, a reasonably prudent person will take greater risks than might ordinarily be justified.... “In the instant case we have a situation where an unattended gasoline truck, partially loaded with inflammable gasoline, was rolling downhill in the vicinity of plaintiffs buildings. While the evidence regarding the speed of the truck was conflicting, plaintiff testified that it was moving at a ‘good, fast walk.’ Whether the truck would have actually struck a building or otherwise destroyed property is not controlling if the attendant circumstances created the apprehension of danger. In almost any situation an uncontrolled vehicle in motion, particularly one of this kind, creates such apprehension. Common sense alone ivould almost seem sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s reaction ivas instinctive and one to be expected in such a dangerous situation. Certainly we should not say that all reasonable men ivould have stood by and let the truck roll on.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Simmons v. Carwell

2. ““Appellee answers that uncontrovert-ed facts make it plain there was no sufficient imminence of peril to persons or property; there is no evidence that plaintiff had any cause to fear or apprehend danger to either persons or property; that even in an attempted rescue plaintiff was still required to exercise ordinary care for his own safety; and therefore, plaintiffs conduct being rash and imprudent, his recovery in any event was barred.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Simmons v. Carwell

3. “not what a careful person would do under ordinary circumstances, but what would he be likely to do, or might reasonably be expected to do in the presence of the existing peril.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ellsworth Brothers, Inc. v. Crook