Wiggin v. Kingston’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 2015
1 district · 5 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 Tullgren v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. · Chiuchiolo v. New England Wholesale Tailors · Bouley v. Tilo Roofing Co. · Perreault v. Allen Oil Co. · Musgrave v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Assuming that the smooth rear tires of the defendant’s car were not a factor in the cause of the skid, yet it is a reasonable, if not enforced, conclusion that the condition of the roadway and the speed of her car united to produce the loss of control. No other explanation has been suggested. Unexplained skidding does not indicate negligence, but when there are conditions within the driver’s control which may be found ■ accountable for it, careless control becomes causal of the loss of control. If it may be found from other evidence than the event that due care would have avoided the skidding, then liability follows without resort to the formula of res ipsa loquitur. “Whether the defendant in the exercise of care should have anticipated that the speed at which she was driving on. a road made, slippery by soft wet snow was unreasonably dangerous, was an issue of fact. The condition of the road and the skid which occurred on the curve furnished warning of the - need of special care in driving. The chances that a skid might happen were to be taken into account. If there was some probability of loss of control sufficiently serious to induce persons acting in prudence not to take the chance of such loss (Tullgren v. [Amoskeag Mfg. Co.] Nelson-Dowling Coal Company, 82 N.H. 268, 276, 277 , 133 A. 4 , 46 A.L.R. 380 ; Chiuchiolo v. New England Wholesale Tailors, 84 N.H. 329, 332 , 150 A. 540 ; Musgrave v. Great Falls Mfg. Company, 86 N.H. 375, 380 , 169 A. 583 ; Perreault v. Allen Oi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.