46 N.J. Super. 74 - Bergquist v. Penterman’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co. (1959), 66 N.J. Super. 64 - Wolczak v. National Electric Products Corp. (1961)
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 32 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 Stanley Co. of America v. Hercules Powder Co. · Meny v. Carlson · Phillips v. Library Co. · Bacak v. Hogya · Gibilterra v. Rosemawr Homes, 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The employer of an independent contractor will also be held liable if the work was of a kind which the employer should have recognized would during its progress necessarily create the danger of the mishap which occurred, and thus contained or involved an unreasonable or peculiar risk of bodily harm to plaintiff unless special precautions were taken. * * *. “ * * * A specific formulation of the rule applicable in this situation is to’ be found in 2 Restatement, Torts, § 414, p. 1120 (1934): “ ‘One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for bodily harm to others, for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care.’ * * * [Italics omitted].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ' * * * The employer may, however, retain control less than that which is necessary to subject him to liability as master. He may retain only the power to direct the order in which the work shall be done * * *. Such a supervisory control may not subject him to liability under the principles of Agency, but he may be liable under the rule stated in this Section unless he exercises his supervisory control with reasonable care so as to prevent the work which he has ordered to be done from causing injury to others.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for bodily harm to others, for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.