Cooper v. Reading’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2006 · most notably Wagner v. Doehring (1989), Casper v. Charles F. Smith & Son, Inc. (1989)
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 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 Kuhns v. Brugger · Patterson v. Palley Manufacturing Co. · Thompson v. Reading Co. · Dugan v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Altenbach, Et Ux. v. Leh. Val. R.R. Co.
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the instant case the jury was justified in finding that the pool which the City allowed to form presented just such an unreasonable risk. Here, neither the appearance of the canal bed nor the land around it gave any indication that the pool concealed a “step-off” 16 feet deep in its center. Children could play in the water at its edges or upon the ice covering it without ever learning that it was anything more than what it appeared to be — an oversized puddle which had formed at the terminus of a pipe. The very fact that the pool was deceptively shallow at its edges and therefore innocent in appearance is the factor which created the unreasonable risk of harm to unsuspecting child trespassers. Whether the City exercised proper care in permitting the pool to exist in this condition, without giving any warning to the children it knew or should have known were using it as a place of recreation, was a question of fact and properly submitted to the jury for determination. Cf. Altenbach v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 349 Pa. 272, 277 , 37 A.2d 429 [(1944)], supra; Barthold v. Philadelphia, 154 Pa. 109, 110 , 26 A. 304 . Id., 392 Pa. at 463-64 , 140 A.2d at 797 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““§ 342. Dangerous Conditions Known to Possessor. “A possessor of land is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to gratuitous licensees by a natural or artificial condition thereon if, but only if, he “(a) knows of the condition and realizes that it involves an unreason able risk- to them and has reason to believe that they will not discover the condition or realize the risk, and “(b) invites or permits them to enter or remain upon the land, without exercising reasonable care “(i) to make the condition reasonably safe, or “(ii) to warn them of the condition and the risk involved therein.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Generally speaking, however, the care and caution required of a child is measured by his capacity to see and appreciate danger, and he is held only to such measure of discretion as is usual in those of his age and experience; this being necessarily a varying standard, the question is ordinarily one for the jury and not for the court.”
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.