82 Md. App. 87 - Schwarz v. Hathaway’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 12 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. “Maryland Transportation Ann.Code, § 21-509 provides that except when “an emergency prevents the movement of a vehicle in which he is riding and the person goes only to the nearest telephone or other source of assistance ... ”, “a pedestrian may not walk along a controlled access highway.” ... It must be conceded, however, that the evidence presented at trial permitted an inference that, in walking his motorcycle along the Beltway, a controlled access highway, the decedent violated that statute. Nevertheless, where the issue of negligence depends upon establishing a violation of law, the party carrying the burden of proof on that issue “must establish both the violation and its proximate cause relationship to the injury before the case is submitted to the jury.” See also Peterson v. Underwood, 258 Md. 9, 15 , 264 A.2d 851 (1970), in which the Court of Appeals stated, quoting Austin v. Buettner, 211 Md. 61, 70 , 124 A.2d 793 (1956): It is a rule in this State that the mere violation of a statute will not support an action for damages, even though it may be evidence of negligence, unless there is legally sufficient evidence to show the violation was the proximate cause of the injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 124 Md. App. 170 - Rosenthal v. Mueller

2. “The evidence was quite clear ... that since the point of impact was on the shoulder of the road, appellee’s truck must have drifted onto the shoulder and struck the decedent. It was that negligence, the failure of Hathaway to keep a proper lookout and control of his truck with the result that it drifted onto the shoulder and struck decedent, that was the direct cause of the decedent’s death. Decedent’s negligence, if negligence it is — standing and/or walking a motorcycle along the mini-shoulder — was at best “merely passive and potential.” On the other hand, Hathaway’s negligence — failing to keep a proper lookout and control over his vehicle — was its “moving and effective cause.” It follows that the issue should not have been presented to the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 124 Md. App. 170 - Rosenthal v. Mueller

3. ““ ‘[wjhere there is a conflict of evidence as to material facts relied upon to establish contributory negligence, or the act is of such a nature that reasonable minds, after considering all the circumstances surrounding the accident, may draw different conclusions as to whether it constituted contributory negligence, it is not for the court to determine its quality as a matter of law, but it is for the jury to pass upon it.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 84 Md. App. 649 - Schroyer v. McNeal