Shepard v. Denver Tramway Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
62 F.2d 339 · 1932
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company v. Kellogg · Cole v. German Savings & Loan Soc. · Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Elliott · Clogher v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co. · Bass v. Concord Street Railway
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The case belongs to that class where a passenger is invited to alight at a place of danger due to the maintenance of some improvement placed by a city in the street. It should be distinguished from those cases where the city alone is negligent, or the passenger after alighting travels into a place of danger. The two factors to be considered are the negligence of each party. “The passenger must not contribute to the accident. The plaintiff testified that the lowest step of the car was high from the pavement, she looked down carefully, stepped down very slowly and carefully, arid the buttons were of the same color as the pavement, which looked smooth. She had often alighted at that .intersection, knew the buttons were on the street, but she ‘didn’t figure them out, they went so far back.’ The accident happened at night The plaintiff said she guessed it was light. On this evidence, it seems to me the question of contributory negligence was one for the jury. “On the subject of defendant’s negligence, which the majority has determined in its favor, it is true the zone buttons* were legally installed by the city for the safety of travelers, and the company had the right to stop the car elsewhere than at the intersection for purposes of its safety 'and convenience. But, in doing so, its duty was not to open the gates and invite plaintiff to alight where she would be subjected to unnecessary hazard. It could reasonably anticipate that if the steps were directly over an oval zone but”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.