52 Wis. 2d 751 - Knutter v. Bakalarski’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2003
11 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 Neitzke v. Kraft-Phenix Dairies, Inc. · 45 Wis. 2d 340 - Lovesee v. Allied Development Corp. · Criswell v. Seaman Body Corp. · Patterson v. Edgerton Sand & Gravel Co. · Sandeen v. Willow River Power Co.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is a lesser duty than a nonworkman under the same hazards. The workman’s duty of care is usually stated as the care of an ‘ordinarily intelligent and prudent workman to carry on his work so as to guard against injury to himself.’ This is the language found in the Wisconsin cases for over forty-five years and includes the doctrine that momentary diversion of attention or preoccupation of a workman in the discharge of his duties minimizes the degree of care required of him in the absence of such diversion or preoccupation.” Knutter v. Bakalarski, 52 Wis.2d 751, 755 , 191 N.W.2d 235 (1971), see Criswell v. Seaman Body Corp., 233 Wis. 606, 622 , 290 N.W.2d 177 (1940).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The reasoning supporting the rule applicable to workmen is grounded on public policy and recognizes that because a workman who is necessarily in the location of hazard, and necessarily must be absorbed in his work if it is to be efficiently performed has only a limited ability to watch out for the hazards, and a momentary preoccupation is not negligence if ordinarily prudent workmen under such conditions would have acted similarly.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““. . . understanding and clarity for the jury is best obtained by giving the specialized instruction in terms of an ordinarily prudent workman and not confuse the jury with a nonexistent ordinarily prudent mam, converted into a workman by indirection.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision 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.