61 Cal. 2d 681 - Fowler v. Seaton’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably 3 Cal. 3d 780 - Bardessono v. Michels (1970), 62 Cal. 2d 154 - Quintal v. Laurel Grove Hospital (1964)
8 federal appellate · 60 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 25 Cal. 2d 486 - Ybarra v. Spangard · 39 Cal. 2d 436 - Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. · Siverson v. Weber · 56 Cal. 2d 466 - Faulk v. Soberanes · 53 Cal. 2d 544 - Lehmuth v. Long Beach Unified School District
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he mere fact that an accident happened and an injury resulted does not, without more, warrant application of the doctrine ... [T]he fact that a particular injury is rare and does not “normally” occur is not in itself proof that it was probably caused by the negligence of those in charge____ Here it is undisputed that plaintiff was a healthy active child almost four years old—i.e., of an age and competency amply sufficient to enable her to walk, run, collide with other children or solid objects, climb, fall down, swing, jump, and generally conduct herself independently of the assistance and support of others, spending an entire nine-hour day at nursery school____ Admittedly the blow here sustained by plaintiff had serious consequences; but this type of physical contact—i.e., a bump on the forehead—is among those commonly suffered by children of plaintiffs age in many forms of active play, regardless of the supervision provided by parent or teacher____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It must be remembered that, at this stage of the proceedings, we are involved solely with the question of whether the plaintiff has offered to prove a circumstantial case that should have gone to the jury. As pointed out, this depends on the reasonable probabilities. Is it more reasonable than not, where a sound, healthy child is delivered to the custody of defendant, and a badly damaged child with concussion of the brain is delivered back, that defendant was negligent in her supervision, when the defendant, when faced with the physical facts, which she had not volunteered, gave a false explanation?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"From this evidence the jury could infer, reasonably, that the proffered explanation was false. This is important. Here we have a defendant, who had supervision of the child when the injury occurred, offering a false and certainly an unsatisfactory explanation. She was under a duty to explain. From this the jury could infer that defendant had a consciousness of guilt. This itself is evidence of a circumstantial nature that goes onto the scales in determining whether ‘it is more probable than not’ that the injury was the result of defendant’s negligence. ’ ’”
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.