51 Cal. 2d 832 - Wolfsmith v. Marsh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

75 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““One of the questions for you to decide in this case is whether the injury involved occurred under the following circumstances: First, that it is the kind of injury which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence ; Second, that it was caused by an agency or instrumentality in the exclusive control of the defendant; and Third, that the injury was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. If, and only in the event that you should find all these conditions to exist, you are instructed as follows: “From the happening of the accident involved in this ease, an inference arises that a proximate cause of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant. That inference is a form of evidence and unless there is contrary evidence sufficient to meet or balance it, the jury should find in accordance with the inference. “When there is any evidence to the contrary, you must weigh all of the evidence bearing upon the issue of defendant’s negligence. If the evidence tending to prove that the accident was caused by a failure of the defendant to exercise the care required of him has greater weight than the evidence to the contrary, you will find in favor of the plaintiff on that issue. “In order to meet or balance the inference of negligence, the defendant must present evidence to show either (1) a satisfactory explanation of the accident, that is, a definite, cause for the accident, in which there is no negligence”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 58 Cal. 2d 815 - Davis v. Memorial Hospital · 233 Cal. App. 2d 799 - LeMere v. Goren

2. “1 ‘ The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has three conditions: “ ‘ (1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; “ ' (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant ; “ 1 (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. ’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Preston v. Hurtt · 4 Cal. App. 3d 463 - Albers v. Greyhound Corp.

3. ““Res ipsa loquitur applies where the occurrence of the injury is of such a nature that it can be said, in the light of past experience, that it probably was the result of negligence by someone and that the defendant is probably the person who is responsible. In determining whether such probabilities exist with regard to a particular occurrence, the courts have relied both on common knowledge and on expert testimony. [Citations.] Where the evidence is conflicting or subject to different inferences as to a fact necessary to the applicability of the doctrine, for example, as to whether an accident claimed by the plaintiff happened or whether an injury was caused by the conduct of the defendant rather than by the acts of someone else, the question of fact must be left to the jury under proper instructions. [Citations.] ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 233 Cal. App. 2d 799 - LeMere v. Goren