Weeks v. Wilson Transit Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The defendant says that the tiller rope broke, and that the vessel became unmanageable, and the collision unavoidable. That only shows that the breaking of the tiller rope was the cause of the collision. It must .go further, and show that the cause which operated to break the tiller rope was unavoidable. The collision was but the result of the cause which produced a broken tiller rope. If that cause is not shown to be unavoidable, how can it be said that the collision was an inevitable accident? Unless the defendant can get rid of the negligence proved against it, by showing the cause which broke this wheel rope, and that the result of that cause was inevitable, or by showing all the possible causes which might have produced such an effect, and then showing that the result of each one of these possible causes could not have been avbided by it, it has not met the burden of proof which rests upon it. This is the doctrine of the late case of The Merchant Prince [1892] Prob. 179, 187.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. · The Adventuress

2. ““Whether this defect was due to the fault of the manufacturer, or was the result of use, the defendants would not be In fault, unless It was of such a character as that, by such examination as ,was in their power to make, it could have been disclosed. The rope was, when bought, such as a prudent and cautious owner might safely put in his vessel. No test, save that of the hand and eye, was possible. It was bought, as the best of its kind, from reputable outfitters. The manufacturer is undisclosed. We do not think this important. The article was such as was adapted to the purpose for which it was used, and was such as was customarily used by prudent men engaged in the same business. The owners of Vessels are not, as to strangers, under any liability as warrantors of the sufficiency and soundness of machinery or equipment. They are hound to use that degree of care in the selection of machinery and equipments which persons of ordinary prudence are accustomed to use and employ for the same purpose.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Heimlich

3. ““The burden rests on the defendants to show inevitable accident To sustain that, the defendants must do one or other of two things. They must either show what was the cause of the accident, and show that the result of that cause was inevitable, or they must show all the possible causes, one or other of which produced the effect, and must further show with regard to every one of these possible causes that the result could not have been avoided. Unless they do one or other of these two things, it does not appear to me that they have shown inevitable accident.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. The Edmund Moran