Terror Mining Co. v. Roter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 10 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. “1. where defendant pursues a highly hazardous course with the knowledge that tragic consequences are highly probable, defendant’s conduct is reckless or wanton, and not merely negligent or careless. Steeves v. Smiley, 144 Colo. 5, 9-10 , 354 P.2d 1011, 1014 (1960). (emphasis added); 2. ordinary or simple negligence should be considered as resulting from a passive mind, while a willful and wanton disregard is the result of an active and purposeful intent. Pettingell v. Moede, 129 Colo. 484 , 271 P.2d 1038 (1954); 3. willful and wanton conduct, for purposes of awarding exemplary damages, “means conduct purposefully committed which the actor must have realized as dangerous, done heedlessly and recklessly, without regard to the consequences, or of the rights and safety of others”. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13 — 21-102(l)(b)(1987).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Castaldo v. Stone

2. “in order to fall within the scope of the willful and wanton misconduct exception to the parental immunity doctrine, the Roter children would need to allege in their complaint or assert in their response in opposition to Dr. Roter’s motion, facts that would, at the least, raise an inference that when Dr. Roter placed his children in the bed of the Unimog for the purpose of transporting the spool of cable, he did so consciously, knowingly, with reckless disregard of, or intentionally having considered that the tragic consequences which occurred were “highly probable.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Castaldo v. Stone

3. “Thus, we concur with the district court that while the facts alleged ... might suggest that Dr. Roter’s conduct ... was unreasonable or negligent, plaintiffs] failed to sufficiently plead specific facts ... upon which a reasonable inference could be drawn that Dr. Roter purposefully pursued an activity that he had considered, more likely than not, would result in the tragic accident injuring the Roter children.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Castaldo v. Stone