Hack v. Gillespie’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2013
12 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 Mounsey v. Ellard · 20 Ill. 2d 406 - Dini v. Naiditch · Gibson v. Leonard · Christensen v. Murphy · Pottebaum v. Hinds
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.
“"First, fire fighters and police officers can enter the premises of a private property owner or occupant under authority of law. Hence, fire fighters and police officers can be distinguished from ordinary invitees. Second, because a landowner or occupier can rarely anticipate the presence of safety officers on the premises, the burdens placed on possessors of property would be too great if fire fighters and police officers were classified, in all instances, as invitees to whom a duty of reasonable care was owed. Third, the rule has been deemed to be justified based on a cost-spreading rationale through Ohio's workers' compensation laws. In this regard, this court has recognized that all citizens share the benefits provided by fire fighters and police officers and, therefore, citizens should also share the burden if a fire fighter or police officer is injured on the job."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“An owner or occupier of private property can be liable to a fire fighter or police officer who enters premises and is injured in the performance of his or her official job duties if (1) the injury was caused by the owner's or occupier's willful or wanton misconduct or affirmative act of negligence; (2) the injury was a result of a hidden trap on the premises; (3) the injury was caused by the owner's or occupier's violation of a duty imposed by statute or ordinance enacted for the benefit of fire fighters or police officers; or (4) the owner or occupier was aware of the fire fighter's presence on the premises, but failed to warn [him] of any known, hidden danger thereon. (Scheurer v. Trustees of Open Bible Church [1963], 175 Ohio St. 163 , 23 Ohio Op.2d 453 , 192 N.E.2d 38 , paragraph two of the syllabus, followed.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In holding the policeman to be a mere licensee, this court was guided by the fact that police officers * * * are likely to enter premises at unforeseeable times and venture into unlikely places, typically in emergency situations. Thus, the landowner cannot reasonably anticipate their presence nor prepare the premises for them, and the police officer must take the premises as the owner himself uses them. `Policemen and firemen come on the premises at any hour of the day or night and usually because of an emergency, and they go to parts of the premises where people ordinarily would not go. Their presence cannot reasonably be anticipated by the owner, *Page 7 since there is no regularity as to their appearance and in most instances their appearance is highly improbable.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.