53 Cal. 2d 860 - Davis v. Erickson’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 1992 · most notably 15 Cal. 3d 40 - Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975), 180 Cal. App. 2d 898 - Tate v. Canonica (1960)
3 federal appellate · 26 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 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · Mosley v. Arden Farms Co. · Richardson v. Ham · Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco · 40 Cal. 2d 630 - Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A defendant may be negligent for failing to guard against an intervening cause which in ordinary human experience is reasonably to be anticipated or which the defendant has reason to anticipate. In other words, the risk created by the original act of negligence may include the intervention of the foreseeable negligence of others. (Prosser on Torts, 2d ed., p. 268 et seq.) The fact that the intervening act of a third person is a negligent one will not make it a superseding cause of harm to another for an injury which the original actor helped to bring about, if the original actor at the time of his negligent conduct should have realized that a third person might so act. [Citation.] That is, the defendant will be held liable for the damages resulting from the intervening cause that he could foresee, or for those which are the normal results of the risk he has created.. ..”
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.