Ellsworth v. Tedesco’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Under the circumstances as appear from the record, we can hardly conceive that the pilot light was ever extinguished so that unburned gas flowed into the small room for the simple reason, as we stated before, that the water heater is an instantaneous one and the moment there was no flame to heat the coils, the flow of hot water was not possible. When the members of the police force arrived at the premises some time after the accident, they found the water in the tub was still hot, and if cold water had been flowing from the heater as a result of the extinguishment of the pilot, it is an axiomatic fact that this would have manifested itself by making the water in the tub cold. The police officers say the water was extremely hot. Another fact is that the neighbor who rushed into the bathroom almost immediately after the room was broken into stated there was no odor of gas. H» »j« “We are absolutely certain from the evidence before us that the child’s death under investigation did not occur as a result of escaping natural gas, and we rule that out as a cause.” ■ -”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ellsworth v. Tedesco

2. ““Frankly, we do not know what caused the demise of the little girl, but we unhesitatingly stand firm in our conclusion that there is no evidence that a defect in the premises brought it about or was a contributing cause. Hence, plaintiffs cannot be successful in their demands. They have not borne the burden of proving; their case by a preponderance of evidence. It was encumbent that they show that their child died because of vices or defects in the premises. See Burch v. Mathson, La.App., 26 So.2d 230 ; Dugas v. Mayer, La.App., 179 So. 607 ; Castain v. Lograco, La.App., 152 So. 153 ; Boudro v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., 145 So. 294 ; Potter v. Soady Bldg. Co., Inc., La. App., 144 So. 183 ; Cosey v. Scott, 17 La.App. 680 , 137 So. 361 . The happening of the accident raises no presumption that the landlord was negligent or that he failed to keep his building in repair. Boudro v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., supra.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 120 So. 2d 293 - Davilla v. Richardson

3. ““The instant suit is based on Articles 670 and 2322 of the Louisiana Civil Code, which place a duty on the owner of a building to keep his premises in repair and make him answerable for damage either occasioned by its ruin when caused by his neglect to repair it or resulting from a vice in its original construction. In order to succeed in this action these plaintiffs would have had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the heater was defective and that its defects caused or contributed to their infant daughter’s death. * * * * * * “After a careful analysis of all the evidence and testimony, there is no conclusion that we can reach except that plaintiffs have not proven or established to our satisfaction by a preponderance of the evidence that a defect in the heater caused or contributed to the death of their child, and hence they cannot recover.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 120 So. 2d 293 - Davilla v. Richardson