53 Cal. 2d 340 - King v. Lennen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 72 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(a) the place where the condition is maintained is one upon which the possessor knows or should know that such children are likely to trespass, and "(b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or should know and which he realizes or should realize as involving an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and "(c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling in it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and "(d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition is slight as compared to the risk to young children involved therein. ’ ’”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Joslin v. Southern Pacific Co. · Herrera v. Southern Pacific Railway Co.

2. ““A number of cases decided before Garcia v. Soogian, supra, 52 Cal.2d 107 , and Courtell v. McEachen, supra, 51 Cal.2d 448 , reasoned that the ‘ attractive nuisance ’ doctrine does not apply unless the dangerous condition is uncommon and different from natural conditions which exist everywhere and that a body of water, natural or artificial, is a common danger and therefore, as a matter of law, will not subject the possessor to liability for the drowning of a trespassing child, even if that child is too young to appreciate the danger. (See, e.g., Knight v. Kaiser Co., 48 Cal.2d 778, 782 [ 312 P.2d 1089 ] ; Melendez v. City of Los Angeles, 8 Cal.2d 741, 745 [ 68 P.2d 971 ] ; Doyle v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 6 Cal.2d 550, 552 [ 59 P.2d 93 ] ; Peters v. Bowman, 115 Cal. 345, 350-351, 355-356 [ 47 P. 113, 598 , 56 Am.St.Rep. 106 ] ; Van Winkle v. City of King, 149 Cal.App.2d 500, 506 [ 308 P.2d 512 ] ; Wilford v. Little, 144 Cal.App.2d 477, 480-482 [ 301 P.2d 282 ]; Lopez v. Capitol Co., 141 Cal.App.2d 60, 65-67 [ 296 P.2d 63 ] ; Lake v. Ferrer, 139 Cal.App.2d 114, 117-118 [ 293 P.2d 104 ] ; Ward v. Oakley Co., 125 Cal.App.2d 840, 845 [ 271 P.2d 536 ] ; King v. Simons Brick Co., 52 Cal.App.2d 586, 590 [ 126 P.2d 627 ] ; Beeson v. City of Los Angeles, 115 Cal.App. 122, 126-128 [ 300 P. 993 ] ; Reardon v. Spring Valley Water Co., 68 Cal.App. 13, 15-17 [ 228 P. 406 ].) This reasoning is inconsistent with the Restatement rule, and the cases cited above are disapproved insofar as their”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 178 Cal. App. 2d 232 - Helguera v. Cirone

3. ““ * * * The allegations describing the condition of defendants’ pool and the surrounding premises, including the absence of an adequate fence or other safeguards, state facts sufficient to permit a trier of fact to find that defendants should have realized that a serious danger of drowning was presented with respect to any unsupervised child of Boyd’s age who might come to the pool. Obviously it could be found that a child of one and one-half years would not understand the risk involved in being near a swimming pool, and it is alleged that Boyd did not know the danger. The last of the requirements set forth in section 339 was also sufficiently covered by the allegations that the utility to defendants of maintaining the condition was slight as compared with the risk to young children and that reasonable safeguards could have been provided at little cost.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eller v. M.L.D. Trust