Jig the Third Corporation v. Puritan Marine Insurance Underwriters Corporation, Defendants-Third-Party Atlantic Marine, Inc., Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant. James I. George, Jr. v. Atlantic Marine, Inc., Jig the Third Corporation v. Y. E. Hall, Inc., Defendant-Third-Party Atlantic Marine, Inc., Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.2d 171 · 1975
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. (1986), Austin v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (1983)
45 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 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 The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · Kossick v. United Fruit Co. · Dann v. Johnston
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“can bargain over which party is to bear the risk of damage and set the price accordingly, thus achieving a more rational distribution of the risk than the law would otherwise allow.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rationale presupposes that the contracting parties have in fact considered the relative costs of insuring against negligent design and manufacture and have incorporated their conclusions into the contract.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There can be no doubt that the seller’s liability for negligence covers any kind of physical harm, including not only personal injuries, but also property damage to the defective chattel itself, as where an automobile is wrecked by reason of its own bad brakes, as well as damage to any other property in the vicinity. But where there is no accident, and no physical damage, and the only loss is a pecuniary one, through loss of the value or use of the thing sold, or the cost of repairing it, the courts have adhered to the rule, to be encountered later, that purely economic interests are not entitled to protection against mere negligence, and so have denied recovery. Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) at 655.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.