Bachner v. Rich’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably Dura Corp. v. Harned (1985), Brady v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. (1992)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 41 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 Love v. State · Olson v. Westerberg · Holiday Inns of America, Inc. v. Peck · State v. Phillips · Oxenberg v. Alaska
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court may adopt as the standard of conduct of a reasonable man the requirements of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation whose purpose is found to be exclusively or in part (a) to protect a class of persons which includes the one whose interest is invaded, and (b) to protect the particular interest which is invaded, and (c) to protect that interest against the kind of harm which has resulted, and (d) to protect that interest against the particular hazard from which the harm results.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“The determination whether any legislative enactment prescribes a specific course of conduct, the violation of which is negligence per se, or only a rule of conduct, compliance with which is to be tested by the conduct of a reasonably prudent person, often presents a problem of great difficulty. Where there exists a legislative enactment commanding or prohibiting for the safety of others the doing of a specific act and there is a violation of such enactment solely by one whose duty it is to obey it, such violation constitutes negligence per se; but where there exists a legislative enactment expressing for the safety of others, in general or abstract terms, a rule of conduct, negligence per se has no application, and liability must be determined by the application of the test of due care as exercised by a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances of the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nazareno v. Urie“No employer shall require any employee to go or be in any employment or place of employment which is not safe. No employer shall fail or neglect to: 1. Provide or use safety devices and safeguards. 2. Adopt and use methods and processes reasonably adequate to render the employment and place of employment safe. 3. Do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life and safety of employees. 4. Where any toxic materials are used or stored warning signs will be posted with a white background and red letters not less than 3 inches high. No employer, owner, or lessee of any property shall construct or cause to be constructed any place of employment that is not safe.”
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.