Olson v. Prosoco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably In the Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Incorporated (1995), Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd. (2002)
3 federal appellate · 27 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 Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp. · Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia · 53 Cal. 3d 987 - Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. · 79 Ill. 2d 26 - Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co. · Flaminio v. Honda Motor 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny posited distinction between strict liability and negligence principles [in warning cases] is illusory.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[njothing contained in this section shall diminish the duty of an assembler, designer, supplier of specifications, distributor, manufacturer or seller to warn concerning subsequently acquired knowledge of a defect or dangerous condition that would render the product unreasonably dangerous for its foreseeable use or diminish the liability for failure to so warn.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In order to recover damages in this case, Spencer Ludman must prove all of the following propositions by preponderance of the evidence: 1.That Assumption knew, or in exercise of reasonable care should have known that the location and condition of the visitor’s dugout at the Assumption ball field involved an unreasonable risk of injury to a person such as Spencer Ludman as a visiting ball player. 2. Assumption knew or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known: a) That the plaintiff would not discover the condition, or b) The plaintiff would not realize the condition presented an unreasonable risk of injury, or c) The plaintiff would not protect himself from the condition. 3. Assumption was negligent because, given the proximity and location of the visitor’s dugout to home plate, it failed to take reasonable care to protect people such as Spencer Ludman in: a) failing to fence or protect the entire area of the dugout with gates or barriers, or b) failing to provide an alternate entrance 4. That Assumption’s negligence was a cause of the plaintiffs damage. 5. The nature and extent of the damage. 6. If the plaintiff has failed to prove any of these propositions, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages. If the plaintiff has proved all of these propositions, then you will consider the defense of unreasonable failure to avoid an injury, as explain in instruction number 13. 3”
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.