Fruit v. Schreiner’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
1 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Klein v. Raysinger (1983), Dura Corp. v. Harned (1985)
1 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 11 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 United States v. Radio Television News Directors Ass'n · Grunenthal v. Long Island Rail Road · Federal Trade Commission v. Textile & Apparel Group · 2 Cal. 3d 956 - Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co. · Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Scope of employment" as a test for application of respondeat superior would be insufficient if it failed to encompass the duty of every enterprise to the social community which gives it life and contributes to its prosperity... . The basis of respondeat superior has been correctly stated as "the desire to include in the costs of operation inevitable losses to third persons incident to carrying on an enterprise, and thus distribute the burden among those benefited by the enterprise." (citation omitted) [3]”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kastner v. Toombs · Barton v. Lund“we shall not set aside an award on a claim of excessiveness unless it is so large as to strike us that it is manifestly unjust, such as being the result of passion or prejudice or a disregard of the evidence or rules of law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Since we are dealing with vicarious liability, justification may not be found on theories involving the employer’s personal fault such as his failure to exercise proper control over the activities of his employees or his failure to take proper precautions in firing or hiring them. Lack of care on the employer’s part would subject him to direct liability without the necessity of involving respondeat superior. “The concept of vicarious liability is broad enough to include circumstances ‘where the master has been in no way at fault; where the work which the servant was employed to do was in no sense unlawful or violative of the plaintiff’s rights; where there has been no delegation of a special duty; where the tortious conduct of the servant was neither commanded or ratified; but nevertheless the master is made responsible.’[ 1 ] This liability arises from the relationship of the enterprise to society rather than from a misfeasance on the part of the employer.””
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.