← 469 F.2d 97 - Ralph D. Smith and Thelma Smith v. Arbaugh's Restaurant, Inc., a Body Corporate

Ralph D. Smith and Thelma Smith v. Arbaugh's Restaurant, Inc., a Body Corporate’s Empirical Analysis

469 F.2d 97 · 1973

Citation profile

111

cited by 111 later decisions

states following

October 2016

most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 11 district · 69 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. (1985), State Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Payne (1992)

27 federal appellate · 11 district · 69 state decisions — followed in 32 states

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 Rowland v. Christian · Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique · Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · First National Bank in Plant City v. Dickinson · Ethel Javins v. First National Realty Corporation, Rudolph Saunders v. First National Realty Corporation, Stanley Gross v. First National Realty Corporation

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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“A landowner must act as a reasonable man in maintaining his property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Pawlitzke v. Donald B Murphy Contractors Inc Dbm · Roberts v. United States
“A man's life or limb does not become less worthy of protection by the law nor a loss less worthy of compensation under the law because he has come upon the land of another without permission or with permission but without a business purpose. Reasonable people do not ordinarily vary their conduct depending upon such matters, and to focus upon the status of the injured party as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee in order to determine the question of whether the landowner has a duty of care, is contrary to our social mores and humanitarian values. The common law rules obscure rather than illuminate the proper considerations which should govern determination of the question of duty.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Garza · Hofer Ex Rel. Hofer v. Meyer
“A [landowner ] is not an insurer of the condition of his [property]. His duty is to exercise reasonable care to keep [his property] safe [in view of the foreseeability of the presence of others on his land]. He is responsible, of course, for injuries resulting from risks created personally or by his employees. Moreover, his obligation of due care extends to reasonable supervision and inspection of the premises to identify and protect against potential perils [in view of the probability of injury to others]. For this reason, liability may also spring from a negligent failure to safeguard against dangers born of the activities of [others]. But negligence can be found in relation to a [visitor]-created hazard only if it is known, or because of its duration should have been discovered, in time to afford a fair opportunity to remove it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
e.g. Sandoe v. Lefta Associates · Croce v. Hall

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.