Blessing v. Pittman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Court instructs the jury that in order to determine who is responsible for any negligent acts of an employee, it must be determined by whom such person is employed at the time of the act. If a servant or employee is loaned or, for a consideration, is furnished by an employer to another person, the question of who is liable for the employee’s acts generally depends upon which person has the right of direction and con trol and whose work was being done while performing the act complain (sic) of. The responsibility for the servant or employee is in the person who has direction and control over him. “In this case, plaintiff, in order to recover from the defendant Rocky Mountain Trucking Company, must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had direction and control over the person whose negligence caused the accident complained of.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rocky Mountain Trucking Co. v. Taylor

2. ““The fact that a person is the general servant of one employer does not, as matter of law, prevent him from becoming the particular servant of another, who may be held liable for his acts. Indeed, as a general proposition, if one person lends his servant to another for a particular employment, the servant, for anything done in that employment, is dealt with as the servant of the one to whom he has been lent, although he remains the general servant of the person who lent him. * * * ” 35 Am.Jur. Master and Servant § 541. “Although various elements may tend to indicate the existence of a master and servant relation, no one fact or circumstance is necessarily conclusive; ordinarily the question is one of fact to be determined from all the circumstances of the case.” 56 C.J.S. Master and Servant § 2.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Robinson Transportation Co. v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co.

3. “* * * in view of the fact that one for whom work is done by a negligent servant is, on grounds of public policy, required to pay the damages proximately caused by the latter, if the work is within the scope of his employment, it often becomes a delicate question when a servant has been loaned to another as to what party should be held responsible, and it is only by the exercise of common sense, and by our innate sense of justice and sound reason that the proper answer can be furnished.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tyler v. Jensen