Luzadder v. Despatch Oven Co.’s Empirical Analysis
834 F.2d 355 · 1987
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Childers v. Joseph (1988), Rose v. Fox Pool Corp. (1994)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · Foley v. the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co. · Freezer Storage, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Co. · Eavenson, Auchmuty & Greenwald v. Holtzman · McGowan v. University of Scranton
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) General rule.... a civil action or proceeding brought against any person lawfully performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction, or construction of any improvement to real property must be commenced within 12 years after completion of construction of such improvement to recover damages for: (1) Any deficiency in the design, planning, supervision or observation- of eon-struetion or construction of the improvement. (3) Injury to the person ... arising out of any such deficiency.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“There is no logical basis for such a distinction, and it would obviously be absurd to hold that a manufacturer would be hable if negligent in building a small, readily movable tank which would undoubtedly be a chattel, but not in building an enormously íarge and correspondingly more potentially dangerous a one that legalistically was classified as realty. The principle inherent in the MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. case and those that had followed it is that one who manufactures and delivers any article or structure with the knowledge that it will be subject to use by others, must for the protection of human life and property, use proper care to make it reasonably safe for such users and for those who may come into its vicinity; certainly the application of that principle cannot be made to depend upon the merely technical distinction between a chattel and a structure built upon the land.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ssuming arguendo that [manufacturers] are excluded from the language of the statute, we nevertheless find the statute constitutional as the exclusion is founded on a valid distinction. Suppliers and manufacturers, who typically supply and produce components in large quantities, make standard goods and develop standard processes. They can thus maintain high quality control standards in the controlled environment of the factory. On the other hand, the architect or contractor can pretest and standardize construction designs and plans only in a limited fashion. In addition, the inspection, supervision and observation of construction by architects and contractors involves individual expertise not susceptible of the quality control standards of the factory.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.