White v. Chrysler Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 7 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a duty to make themselves aware of peculiarities of the contractor that would put them on notice of a likelihood that the contractor would use the chattel in an unsafe manner,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Oppedahl v. Mobile Drill Int'l, Inc. · Jeffery Oppedahl v. Mobile Drill International Inc

2. “in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Oppedahl v. Mobile Drill Int'l, Inc. · Jeffery Oppedahl v. Mobile Drill International Inc

3. “We would not be justified in so transforming the responsibility for the observance of job safety precautions. The common law and the Legislature impose responsibility for job safety on the contractor, not on the employer of the contractor. However, because of the bar of the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation act, there generally is no tort liability for failure to provide workplace safety. The proposed theory of liability would evolve a special rule for the benefit only of employees of a contractor injured as a result of the use of chattels in production pursuant to an out-source contract. A common-law cause of action should not be evolved solely or primarily to avoid a statutory limitation. We are not persuaded that such a special rule for the benefit only of a discrete class of seriously injured workers is justified. [ White, supra at 204 , 364 N.W.2d 619 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ghrist v. Chrysler Corp.