Burns v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Under § 25-5-11 , an employee may be liable in damages for the death of, or injuries sustained by, a fellow employee; however, such liability can be based only on injury or death proximately caused by the offending employee's 'willful conduct.' "Section 25-5-11 (c)(1) clearly defines 'willful conduct' in terms of a 'purpose or intent or design to injure another.' The plaintiff need not show that the co-employee defendant specifically intended to injure the person who was injured. What must be shown, however, is that the co-employee defendant set out purposefully, intentionally, or by design to injure someone , and that his actions in furtherance of that purpose, intent, or design, resulted in, or proximately caused, the injury or death upon which suit was brought. In defining 'willful conduct' in these terms, the Legislature recognized the clear distinction that has developed in Alabama between 'wanton conduct' and 'willful conduct': " ' "Wantonness" is the conscious doing of some act or the omission of some duty under knowledge of existing conditions [while] conscious that from the doing of such act or omission of such duty, injury will likely or probably result. " ' "Willfulness" is the conscious doing of some act or omission of some duty under knowledge of existing conditions accompanied with a design or purpose to inflict injury. " 'Therefore, in "wanton conduct" and "wanton injury" a purpose or intent or design to injure is not an ingredient; *Page 903 and where a perso”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 527 So. 2d 102 - Reed v. Brunson · 577 So. 2d 900 - Lee v. Ledsinger

2. “`Wantonness' is defined by the Court as the conscious doing of some act or the omission of some duty while knowing of the existing conditions and being conscious that, from doing or omitting to do an act, injury will likely or probably result.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 567 So. 2d 1314 - Anderson v. Moore Coal Co., Inc.