Bennett v. Stanley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Christian v. Duttry, Unpublished Decision (9-11-2006) · 155 Ohio App. 3d 553 - Aponte v. Castor

2. “{¶ 22} “The requirement of foreseeability is built into the doctrine. The landowner must know or have reason to know that children are likely to trespass upon the part of the property that contains the dangerous condition. See Section 339(a). Moreover, the landowner’s duty ‘does not extend to those conditions the existence of which is obvious even to children and the risk of which should be fully realized by them.’ Id. at Comment i.” Bennett at 42-43, 748 N.E.2d 41 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 155 Ohio App. 3d 553 - Aponte v. Castor · Sutton v. Wheeling Lake Erie Rr. Co., Unpublished Decision (12-28-2005)

3. “exception, which imposes a higher duty of care to a child trespasser when the landowner negligently operates hazardous machinery or similar apparatus,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sutton v. Wheeling Lake Erie Rr. Co., Unpublished Decision (12-28-2005)