Canape v. Peterson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a negligence per se theory of liability "operates to engraft a particular legislative standard onto the general standard of care imposed by traditional tort law principles." Thus, application of a negligence per se instruction affects the common law rights, duties and liabilities of employers and employees. We thus elect not to follow those cases which conclude that the intent of [Section] 653(b)(4) was merely to ensure that OSHA was not read to create a private cause of action, and thus, imposing negligence per se for an OSHA violation is not precluded. Further, we disregard those cases which have held that OSHA regulations may be used to establish negligence per se, but have done so without addressing 29 U.S.C. § 653 (b)(4).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Canape v. Petersen

2. “operates to engraft a particular legislative standard onto the general standard of care imposed by traditional tort law principles.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Canape v. Petersen

3. “[f]loor openings shall be guarded by a standard railing and toe boards or cover.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Canape v. Petersen