52 F. Supp. 488 - Hodges v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 3 district · 26 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An individual or a corporation carrying on an activity which can be lawfully carried on only under a franchise granted by public authority and which involves an unreasonable risk of harm to others, is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to such others by the negligence of a contractor employed to do work in carrying on the activity.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Trautman v. Higbie · Ex Parte Hicks

2. ““Counsel for Jocie contends very vigorously that, even though the doctrine set out above be sound, it should not be applied in this instance because at the time of the accident, Gilmore, operator of Jocie’s truck, had completed his mission and was returning with an empty truck. This contention seems to me to 'be patently unsound. It seems to me that if, under the circumstances here presented, Jocie, the franchise holder, is to be held responsible for the operation of Johnson’s truck on this mission, under Jocie’s franchise, it would be absurd to say that this responsibility should attach while the truck is proceeding on its journey loaded, and should not at-' tach on the return journey while empty. Both the journey to Roanoke, and the return journey to Charlotte, are necessary parts of the same trip, and the whole trip was undertaken, and was being made, under the authority of Jocie’s franchise.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zimmerman v. Mathews Trucking Corp. · Baltimore & Pittsburgh Motor Express, Inc. v. Sustrick

3. ““Undoubtedly, at the time of the accident which is the basis of this action, Johnson, the independent contractor was carrying on an activity which could be lawfully carried on only under a franchise or certificate granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission, a public authority. Joeie had such a franchise, and Johnson did not, and that was the sole reason for the lease agreement, I am also satisfied that this activity involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others. It is a matter of common knowledge that the transportation of freight upon the highways, usually by means of huge trucks and trailers, is fraught with great danger to the traveling public. It has been deemed necessary by the Legislature of this Commonwealth, and probably by the legislatures of all the states in the Union, to enact comprehensive regulatory laws governing the operation of such transportation. And besides, the Congress of the United States has enacted similar laws for the regulation of interstate freight shipments on the highways and has placed all such business under the regulation of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is well known that one of the principal purposes, if not the primary purpose, of these regulatory laws is the protection of the traveling public upon the highways.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Braden v. Turner