Chastain v. Litton System, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
694 F.2d 957 · 1982
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably Scott v. Greenville County (1983), 105 Wash. 2d 457 - Dickinson v. Edwards (1986)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Sutton v. Duke · Standard Oil Co of California v. United States · Charbonnages De France v. Smith · Pierce v. Ford Motor Co. · Jardine v. Upper Darby Lodge No. 1973
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We cannot accept Litton's argument that it is absolved from liability because Beck was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of his collision with Chastain. The contention confuses negligence with proximate cause. It overlooks Beck's relationship with Litton when he became intoxicated, which we believe is the critical time for determining whether the doctrine of respondeat superior should be applied. Again, the initial issue is whether the party was purely a social occasion or whether it was sufficiently related to Litton's business to bring Beck's attendance within the scope of respondeat superior. . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Ajssuming it is not a social host, we conclude that Litton was negligent if it failed to exercise ordinary care in furnishing, or permitting its employees to furnish, alcoholic beverages to [the employee] knowing that he had become intoxicated. * * * This negligence would be a proximate cause of [the collision] if Litton could have reasonably foreseen that [the employee], while intoxicated would probably drive his motor vehicle on a public street and cause a collision. * * * Under these circumstances, Litton would not be insulated by [the employee’s] negligence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Meany v. Newell“"If an employee is negligent while acting in the course of employment and such negligence is the proximate cause of injury to another, the employer is liable in damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior, notwithstanding the fact that the employer, himself, exercised due care in the supervision and direction of the employee."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Camalier v. Jeffries
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.