39 Cal. 2d 598 - Eli v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 33 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It has been held that the general rule of nonliability of an employer of an independent contractor for the contractor’s negligence ‘is subject to exceptions of such magnitude as to leave only a small area in which the general rule operates.’ [Citations.] [][] ... [f] [Millsap contends] liability resulting from Pence’s delivery of packages is nondelegable because the operation is regulated by a public agency. The basis for this argument is found in section 428 of the Restatement Second of Torts: ‘An individual or a corporation carrying on an activity which can be lawfully carried on only under a franchise granted by public authority and which involves an unreasonable risk of harm to others, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to such others by the negligence of a contractor employed to do work in carrying on the activity.’ “This rule ordinarily applies where a public service corporation attempts to delegate its duty to an independent contractor. [Citation.] The rule has, however, also been held to apply if an employer is subject to regulations enacted for the protection of the public. ‘An employer is generally liable for negligent acts of an employee performed within the scope of employment, but if an independent contractor rather than master and servant relationship exists, the independent contractor usually is alone liable for his negligent acts. If, however, an individual or corporation undertakes to carry on an activity involving possible danger to the public”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gilbert v. Rogers · 110 Cal. App. 4th 1475 - Serna v. Pettey Leach Trucking, Inc.

2. ““C.M.T. contends that under the terms of its contract with Leo J. Murphy, the latter was an independent contractor, and that it is therefore not liable for the negligence of Murphy’s employee. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that under both the common law and certain regulations of the Public Utilities Commission, C.M.T., as a highway common carrier, could not delegate its duties to an independent contractor so as to escape liability for their negligent performance. “The common law principle upon which plaintiffs rely has been enunciated in section 428 of the Restatement of Torts, * and has frequently been applied to impose liability upon franchised common carriers who have engaged independent contractors to transport goods over the public highways. (Venuto v. Robinson, 118 F.2d 679, 682-683; War Emergency Co-op. Ass’n v. Widenhouse, 169 F.2d 403, 406-407 ; Cotton v. Ship-By-Truck Co., 337 Mo. 270 [ 85 S.W.2d 80, 84 ]; see, also, Brown v. L. H. Bottoms Truck Lines, Inc., 227 N.C. 229 [ 42 S.E.2d 71, 76 ]; Costello v. Smith, 179 F.2d 715, 717 ; anno., 16 A.L.R.2d 960 , 961, note 2; Restatement in the Courts, Torts, § 428.) We have concluded that it is applicable here. “C.M.T., operating as a highway common carrier, is engaged in a ‘business attended with very considerable risk’ (Venuto v. Robinson, supra; Barry v. Keeler, 322 Mass. 114 [ 76 N.E.2d 158, 164 ]; Hodges v. Johnson, 52 F.Supp. 488, 490 ), and the Legislature has subjected it and similar carriers to the full ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 122 Cal. App. 2d 82 - Lehman v. Robertson Truck-A-Way

3. ““C.M.T., contends, however, that Gaskill v. Calaveras Cement Co., 102 Cal.App.2d 120 [ 226 P.2d 633 ], establishes the rule in this state that a carrier is not liable for the conduct of an independent contractor engaged to transport freight over the highways. In that case, however, both the defendant and the independent contractor stood on an equal footing as contract carriers operating under permits from the Public Utilities Commission. Such carriers are not required to secure certificates of public convenience and necessity and they are not subject to the safety regulations the commission may establish for highway common carriers. They are entitled to permits as a matter of right on complying with the statutory provisions. (Pub. Util. Code, Sec. 3572.) Thus the carriers in that case were engaged in a business open to all, and accordingly, the principle enunciated in section 428 of the Restatement of Torts was inapplicable.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 122 Cal. App. 2d 82 - Lehman v. Robertson Truck-A-Way