49 Wis. 2d 15 - Seif v. Turowski’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably 96 Wis. 2d 314 - Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corp. (1980), 110 Wis. 2d 86 - Westfall Ex Rel. Terwilliger v. Kottke (1983)
23 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 34 Wis. 2d 643 - Hillstead v. Shaw · 32 Wis. 2d 580 - Geis v. Hirth · Statz v. Pohl · Papacosta v. Papacosta · Callahan v. Van Galder
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) If the issue of causal negligence is for the jury and the party inquired about is exonerated but the jury in its comparison of negligence erroneously attributes to such party some degree of causal negligence, the verdict is inconsistent, and a new trial must be granted; “ (2) If it be determined that the party inquired about is free from causal negligence as a matter of law and the jury has exonerated him but has also attributed to him some degree of causal negligence, then the court should strike the answer to the question on comparison as sur-plusage and grant judgment accordingly.” (P. 29) “(3) If but one element of negligence is submitted to the jury and the court can find as a matter of law that the party inquired about in the question is guilty of causal negligence and the jury finds that he is not, and in answer to the question on comparative negligence attributes to him some degree of causal negligence, the court should change the answer to the question which inquires as to his conduct from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’ and permit the jury’s comparison to stand with judgment accordingly.” (P. 32a)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘The doctrine, as stated in Papacosta v. Papacosta (1957), 2 Wis.2d 175 , 85 N.W.2d 790 , is that a person faced with an emergency which his conduct did not create or help to create is not guilty of negligence in the methods he chose, or failed to choose, to avoid the threatened disaster if he is compelled to act instantly without time for reflection.’ Seif v. Turowski (1970), 49 Wis.2d 15, 23 , 181 N.W.2d 388 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . While the time factor is, of course, very important in determining whether a driver is entitled to the doctrine as a matter of law, it is not to be applied in a ‘stop-watch’ fashion. All of the pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and the driver’s opportunity to respond to the danger must be considered. Several seconds in one instance might entitle the actor to the emergency doctrine as a matter of law, and a lesser time interval under different circumstances might not. It is only when, under all of the pertinent or material circumstances, the time interval is so short that reaction is practically instinctive or intuitive that the emergency doctrine can be applied as a matter of law.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.