80 So. 2d 133 - Hazel v. Williams’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. ““Where the depositor or bailor has proved injury he thereby establishes a sufficient prima facie case against the depositary or bailee to put him on his defense.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kern v. Bumpas · 111 So. 2d 808 - White v. Pitts

2. “"* * * and hence, where chattels are delivered to a bailee in good condition and are returned in a damaged state, or are lost or not returned at all, the law presumes the bailee's negligence or other fault to be the cause, and casts on the bailee the burden of showing that the loss was due to other causes consistent with due care on his part, this rule being regarded as an application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur, and if the bailee does not sustain such burden the bailor becomes entitled as a matter of law to a verdict in his favor. "The effect of this modern rule is not to shift the ultimate burden of proof from bailor to bailee, but merely to shift the burden of proceeding or going forward with the evidence; the ultimate burden of establishing negligence is on the bailor and remains on him throughout the trial. "In order to throw the burden of evidence on the bailee it is sufficient that the bailor has shown damage to the bailed article that ordinarily does not happen where the requisite degree of care is exercised. "* * * but the bailee may overcome this presumption by showing that the loss occurred through some cause consistent with due care on his part, in which case he is entitled to the verdict unless the bailor affirmatively proves to the satisfaction of the jury that the loss would not have occurred but for the negligence of the bailee. "* * * In any event, the presumption of negligence arising from the bailee's failure to return bailed property is rebutted ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kern v. Bumpas

3. “"Admittedly, Hazel was a regular customer of Williams and we may well infer the proposal of Wilson was of a business nature and for the purpose of keeping Hazel as a customer. In such an instance the deposit is not gratuitous but becomes an incident of the business in which the depositary makes a profit. Warren v. Geater, 206 Ark. 518 , 176 S.W.2d 242 ; Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice (Blashfield) Vol. 7, sec. 4666 * * *."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 138 So. 2d 247 - Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company v. WALLAGE