63 So. 2d 310 - Loftin v. Bryan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 7 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * * * * "The record shows that the occupants of the automobile had been going from bar to bar and from town to town since approximately midnight, and that drinks and beers were had at these places. This may be the explanation as why no one in the automobile saw the engine until a big black object loomed immediately in front of them. "This is not a question of contributory negligence but is one where the undisputed evidence shows that Hughes' negligence was the sole proximate cause of the collision. The cases of Loftin v. McGregor, supra, and Knudsen v. Hanlan, 160 Fla. 566 , 36 So.2d 192 , are applicable in this case. "In the case of Loftin v. McGregor, supra, after reciting the facts, this Court said [ 152 Fla. 813 , 14 So.2d 574 575 ]: `He neither looked nor listened for the train. He did not slacken his speed for the crossing and did not see the train until he was too near the crossing to avoid the collision.' "[2,3] The appellee urges that the negligence of the driver of the automobile is not imputable to him because he was a mere guest. The record shows that the occupants of the car were more than mere guests. They were jointly on a wild party. This party was participated in by all. They knew, or should have known, of the condition of each other. The appellee was sitting on the front seat of the automobile with the driver. He had an opportunity to observe. There was a duty upon him to exercise some degree of care and caution for his own safety. * * *" * * * * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hoisington v. Kulchin