Mitchell v. Ankney’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 136 Ill. 2d 132 - Ward v. K Mart Corp. (1990), Luther v. City of Winner (2004)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 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 Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Company · Bennett v. Railroad Co. · Smith v. Henger · Nugent v. Quam · Wingett v. Teledyne Industries, Inc.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a general rule, the possessor of land owes an invitee or business visitor the duty of exercising reasonable or ordinary care for his safety and is liable for the breach of such duty. The defendant, however, relies on the exception to this general rule applied when injuries result from dangers that are “obvious, reasonably apparent, or as well known to the person injured as they are to the owner or occupant.” Restatement, Second, Torts, § 343 A(l) summarizes the exception this way: “A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[ T]he possessor is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care which he owes the invitee for his protection. This duty may require him to warn the invitee, or to take other reasonable steps to protect him against the known or obvious condition or activity, if the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee will nevertheless suffer physical harm. Such reason to expect harm to the visitor from known or obvious dangers may arise, for example, where the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee’s attention may be distracted so that he will not discover what is obvious or will forget what he has discovered, or fail to protect himself against it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.”
2 later decisions 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.