Garrett v. Desa Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
705 F.2d 721 · 1983
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc. (1990), 182 W. Va. 597 - Board of Education v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc. (1990)
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
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 Salem v. United States Lines Company · Spier v. Barker · Holmgren v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc. · Victor v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. · Dorothy Mae Gardner v. General Motors Corporation, Mazie M. Johnson v. General Motors Corporation, Alice J. Van Lewen, Individually v. General Motors Cororation
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We believe that the analysis in Wilson is both persuasive and directly applicable to the nonuse of safety goggles. The stud driver would have exploded whether or not Garrett was wearing safety goggles. His nonuse of the goggles was not a proximate cause of that explosion. Thus, since Desa did not demonstrate that Garrett’s eye injury could have been avoided or would have been less severe had he been wearing the goggles, the requested jury instructions [that nonuse of the goggles was not evidence of contributory negligence] should have been granted. Furthermore, on remand, Desa may not introduce evidence of the nonuse unless and until it demonstrates the extent to which Garrett’s injuries could have been avoided by wearing safety goggles.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If you find (1) it was unreasonable for the plaintiff to not wear a helmet, and (2) the plaintiff would not have received some or all of his injuries had he worn a helmet, then (3) the amount of damages awarded the plaintiff for the injuries he sustained must be reduced in proportion to the amount of injury he would have avoided by the use of a helmet. 2 The burden of proof on both (1) and (2) rests with the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Halvorson v. Voeller
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.