Carrier v. Riddell, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.2d 867 · 1983
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 13 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc. (1988), McCloskey v. Mueller (2006)
7 federal appellate · 13 district · 8 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Mounsey v. Ellard · Carter v. Yardley & Co. · Yania v. Bigan
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.
“Speaking in terms of classical tort principle, when one claims that negligence lies in the commission of an act, a de fendant’s duty not to behave negligently typically extends to include all those whom the defendant might reasonably have foreseen to be potential victims of the negligence. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. at 341-43, 162 N.E. 99 ... Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 281. But where negligence consists of an omission — a failure to act- — -a defendant’s duty not to act negligently is more limited. It extends to those who have relied in some special way upon the defendant, to those whom defendants have helped to place in a position where they are likely to depend upon his avoiding negligent omissions. See Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 314-324A ... Thus, a passerby seeing a man drown in a pond may have a moral obligation to extend a helping hand, but he does not necessarily have a legal obligation to do so. Osterlind v. Hill, 263 Mass. 73 [, 160 N.E. 301 ] ... (1928) ... Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 314 (“The fact that the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another’s aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action.”). If, however, the presence of the passerby, say, in the costume of a lifeguard, reasonably led the drowning man to go for a swim, the passerby might then be obliged to make efforts to help. See ... Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 314A (special relations giving”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the absence of some special circumstance one would expect a purchaser or a user of a product to rely for warnings upon the maker of the product they buy or use, not upon the maker of another, similar product.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“extends to those who have relied in some special way upon the defendant, to those whom defendants have helped to place in a position where they are likely to depend upon his avoiding negligent omissions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.