Killman v. Taylor’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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The specific type of case with which we are concerned involves a collision between a motor vehicle on a through highway and a motor vehicle entering upon that highway from an inferior highway or a private entrance. The particular question is whether the operator of the vehicle on the through highway can be held guilty of negligence constituting a proximate cause of the collision, so as to render him liable to a passenger in one car or the other, or so as to bar his own claim for damages. We are not concerned here with the question of the other driver’s negligence, which ordinarily has been fond to exist as a matter of law. In one group of cases, which we shall call ‘Group A,’ this court held that the negligence of the driver who entered upon the through highway was as a matter of law the sole cause of the collision. In that group are Vaughn v. Jones, Ky., 257 S.W.2d 583 ; Chambliss v. Lewis, Ky., 382 S.W.2d 207 ; Riggs v. Miller, Ky., 396 S.W.2d 69 ; Davidson v. Davidson, Ky., 412 S.W.2d 221 ; and Tooke v. Adkins, Ky., 418 S.W.2d 220 . In a second group of cases, ‘Group B,’ we held that there was a jury issue as to whether the driver of the vehicle on the through highway was guilty of negligence constituting a proximate cause of the collision. In that group are Metcalfe v. Hopper, Ky., 400 S.W.2d 531 ; Tilford v. Garth, Ky., 405 S.W.2d 6 ; Browning v. Callison, Ky., 437 S.W.2d 941 ; Indianapolis & Southeastern Trailways, Inc. v. Blankenship, Ky., 444 S.W.2d 267 ; and Ellison”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Capps v. Violett

2. ““Whether that carelessness [of the motorist on the inferior road] is the only proximate cause depends on whether the other driver had reasonable time and opportunity to avoid the collision after he is able to apprehend the negligence of the first motorist."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wittmer v. Jones