Cushing v. Time Saver Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The Act itself and all jurisprudence construing its various provisions, up to this time, have been focused on injuries to employees, and resultant losses by them and certain of their family members, based on the injuries to the employees. With regard to the losses of the family members, these might be economic, such as a loss of support because the injured employee was no longer coming home with a pay check, or they might be intangible, such as a loss of consortium because the injured employee was no longer there to participate in family life ... [T]hese losses, while rightfully termed `separate and distinct' and `independent' from those injuries sustained by the employee, always hinged upon the injuries of the employee ... [T]he family suffered a loss based on that injury. Thus, the claims of the family members were derivative of the employee's injury, even though the language utilized in the cases recognized an individual loss sustained by each family member, albeit one for which no claim could be asserted."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Raney v. Walter O. Moss Regional Hosp. · Ransburg Industries v. Brown

2. “He is entitled to assert a cause of action in tort against his mother's employer in the same way that a child already born, who was injured on the mother's job site, could assert such a claim.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pizza Hut of America, Inc. v. Keefe · 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 7554 - Sena v. Mount Sinai Hosp., No. Cv94 0536351 (Jul. 14, 1994)

3. “Since the loss of the child is not an "injury" as defined by the compensation act, the exclusivity sections, 1032 and 1166, do not even purport to bar an action for such loss, any more than they would prevent an employee from recovering damage to or loss of property from his negligent employer outside of compensation benefits if, for instance, he was injured and his automobile wrecked while being driven by a co-employee and while both were engaged in the employer's business. Nor would the exclusivity provisions prevent a waitress and her husband from bringing a tort action for the loss of her infant child if, for instance, she had been permitted to bring the child to her place of work and while holding the child slipped and fell because of the employer's negligence with the result that the child was killed. No one could successfully argue that the employee's claim as to the car in the first instance or the claim for the death of the baby in the second constituted claims for "injury" which means violence to the "physical structure of the body" of the employee. The same reasoning applies to the unborn child who is a person, a human being, and not merely a piece of tissue from the mother's body.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 630 So. 2d 861 - Vallery v. Southern Baptist Hosp.