Jensen v. Minard’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently June 2005 · most notably Richardson v. Ham (1955), 44 Cal. 2d 861 - People v. Penny (1955)
2 federal appellate · 69 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 Rose v. Melody Lane · 42 Cal. 2d 71 - Cucinella v. Weston Biscuit Co. · Rudd v. Byrnes · In Re the Estate of De Laveaga · 71 Cal. App. 2d 217 - Lasater v. Oakland Scavenger 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since it was conceded that the fatal bullet was fired by defendant, this instruction in effect told the jury that the fact that Bonnie was killed by a bullet from defendant’s gun afforded no evidence of negligence. Ordinarily, however, accidents of this sort do not occur if those using firearms use due care. Even though instructions on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur were not requested, the jury should not have been foreclosed from considering the evidence provided by the happening of the accident itself in determining whether defendant was negligent. * * * Moreover, this error was aggravated by the instruction given on unavoidable accidents, which stated: ‘In law we recognize what is termed an unavoidable or inevitable accident. [Those] terms do not mean literally that it is not possible for such an accident to be avoided. They simply denote an accident ■ that occurred without having been proximately caused by negligence. Even if such an accident could have been avoided by the exercise of exceptional foresight, skill or caution, still, no one may be held liable for injuries resulting from it.’ Considering these instructions together, the jury could easily be led to believe that prima facie the accident was unavoidable and was not owing to defendant’s negligence.” 282 P. 2d, at p. 9 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Inasmuch as the amount of caution used by the ordinarily prudent person varies in direct proportion to the danger known to be involved in his undertaking, it follows that in the exercise of ordinary care, the amount of caution will vary in accordance with the nature of the act and the surrounding circumstances. To put the matter in another way, the amount of caution involved in the exercise of ordinary care increases or decreases as does the danger that reasonably should be apprehended.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tucker v. Lombardo“the rules of law governing actions for injuries caused by the discharge of firearms are not different from the rules governing actions for any injuries claimed to have been inflicted by the negligence of the defendant”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cirilo Duran
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.