76 Cal. App. 2d 481 - Hedding v. Pearson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 26 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A person who, himself, is exercising ordinary care has a right to assume that others, too, will perform their duty under the law, and he has a further right to rely and act on that assumption. Thus, it is not negligence for such a person to fail to anticipate injury which can come to him only from a violation of law or duty by another ...” (b) “If, at the time of the accident in question, the deceased, Fred Covely, was in the performance of a duty enjoined upon him by his employer, Barnes Construction Company, to wit, the unloading and piling of steel H-beams, the deceased had the right to assume that the boom of the mobile crane operated by the defendant William B. Hale would not collapse and fall without warning, and you should not find that said deceased contributed to his own injuries in the doing of that which his employment required that he should do. “You are instructed that where a person must work in a position of possible danger the amount of care which he is bound to exercise for his own safety may well be less by reason of the necessity of his giving attention to his work than would otherwise be the case. Whether or not the decedent, Fred Covely, was guilty of contributory negligence in assisting in the unloading and the piling of the steel H-beams on the date of said accident, all as disclosed by the evidence, is a question for your decision. “You are reminded, however, that it was the duty of the deceased to exercise at all times the care of an ordinary prudent”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 110 Cal. App. 2d 30 - Covely v. C.A.B. Construction Co.

2. “(a) Instructing the jury as follows? “There is a legal principle commonly referred to by the term ‘assumption of risk,’ which now will be explained to you: “One is said to assume a risk when he freely, voluntarily and knowingly manifests his assent to dangerous conduct or to the creation or maintenance of a dangerous condition, and voluntarily exposes himself to that danger, or when he knows, or in the exercise of ordinary care would know, that a danger exists .in either the conduct or condition of another, or in the condition, use or operation of property, and voluntarily places himself, or remains, within the area of danger. “ One who thus assumed a risk is not entitled to recover for damage caused him without intention and which resulted from the dangerous condition or conduct to which he thus exposed himself.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 110 Cal. App. 2d 30 - Covely v. C.A.B. Construction Co.

3. ““ * * * One who is necessarily working on a highway or other placei where there is vehicular traffic, and is injured through the negligent operation of a vehicle, cannot he deprived of his cause of action for damages upon the theory that he voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 197 So. 2d 53 - Watson v. Drew