52 Ohio App. 2d 320 - Marks v. Wagner’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably 2 Ohio App. 3d 440 - Reese v. Minor (1981), Padilla v. Hooks International, Inc. (1982)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 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 Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Wagner v. International Railway Co. · Ellmaker v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company · Woodward v. Gray · 29 Ohio App. 2d 189 - Self v. American Legion Post No. 389
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he issue of whether the proposed rescuer is thereafter contributorily [sic] negligent in attempting a rescue is determined, not by a consideration of the circumstance of the actual peril at that time of the person to be rescued, but by a consideration of the mental state of the rescuer, as to what he reasonably believed from the facts known to him the peril of the person to be rescued to be at that time. [Emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“exist in a case where the negligent act causing the victim's injuries has run its course . . . unless the knowledge of the rescuer gave him reason to believe that the peril to the victim's life was continuing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Marie M. Yurecka, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of William J. Yurecka, Deceased, and as Natural Guardian of M.M. Yurecka and K.W. Yurecka, Minors Brian R. Yurecka v. Jeffrey Zappala Arlene Piccioni-Zappala, Defendants-/Third-Party v. Ronald M. Rockwell Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Ronald C. Rockwell, Third-Party · Yurecka Mm Kw v. Zappala“"Although in these circumstances the evidence would permit the jury to determine it foreseeable, if not foreseen, that with this belief the plaintiff father would run to the aid of the son and thus expose himself to injury in a possible variety of other ways, actionable negligence could only exist if the evidence would also support a determination that it was foreseca-ble that in going to his son's aid the plaintiff father might injure himself by jumping from his front porch. Such action by the father also relates, of course, to contributory negligence but, in the scheme of things, first relates to the issue of defendant's actionable negligence. In any event, in the circumstance es here, these were all jury questions which the trial court and this court are not permitted to decide as a matter of law."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lambert v. Parrish
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.