72 Wash. 2d 754 - Versteeg v. Mowery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[A] jury is no more capable of choosing between conflicting standards in this highly technical area than it is in creating a standard for itself. For this very reason it has always been the rule that: The testimony of other physicians that they would have followed a different course of treatment than that followed by the defendant, or a disagreement of doctors of equal skill and learning as to what the treatment should have been, does not establish negligence. In such cases, the court must hold that there is nothing upon which the jury may pass, the reason being that the jury may not be allowed to accept one theory to the exclusion of the other. [Citations.] ” Versteeg v. Mowery (1967), 72 Wash. 2d 754, 758-59 , 435 P.2d 540, 543 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 73 Wash. 2d 796 - Hayes v. Hulswit · 72 Ill. 2d 249 - Walski v. Tiesenga

2. “The prima facie case in negligence is the showing of an act or omission by the defendant which breaches a standard of care owed by him to the plaintiff, which breach is the cause, both in fact and proximately, of damage to the plaintiff. The sole question on appeal is whether plaintiff introduced proof that defendant failed to observe a standard of care owed the plaintiff. Versteeg v. Mowery, 72 Wn.2d 754 , 435 P.2d 540 (1967).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 73 Wash. 2d 796 - Hayes v. Hulswit