62 Wash. 2d 777 - Potts v. Amis’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently April 1997 · most notably Rowland v. Christian (1968), Di Gildo v. Caponi (1969)
6 federal appellate · 47 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Straight v. B. F. Goodrich Co. · Gasch v. Rounds · Kinsman v. Barton Company · Buttnick v. J. & M., Inc. · McConkey v. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 339. Artificial Conditions Highly Dangerous to Trespassing Children A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if (a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and (b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and (c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and (d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and (e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We need not determine at this time whether the rule applicable to injuries resulting from the condition of the premises should be revised. But we hold that, an owner or occupier of land has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring a person who is on the land with his permission and of whose presence he is, or should be, aware. This holding is in accord with the second exception mentioned in the dictum of the Christensen case [ 16 Wn.2d 424 , 133 P.2d 797 ]. Insofar as McNamara v. Hall, supra, [ 38 Wn.2d 864 , 233 P.2d 852 ] Waller v. Smith, supra, [ 116 Wash. 645 , 200 P. 95 ] and Schock v. Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, supra, [ 5 Wn.2d 599 , 105 P.2d 838 ] are inconsistent with this holding, they are hereby overruled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The rule as thus expressed does not exclude liability on the part of the owner or proprietor for extraordinary concealed perils against which the licensee cannot protect himself, or for unreasonable risks incident to the possessor’s activities.”
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.