Wick v. Clark County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This holding is erroneous. The adoption of comparative negligence does not create a new liability where none previously existed. Rather, recovery is now permitted where it was previously denied after liability has been established. The doctrine of comparative negligence does not enhance duty. It merely removes the bar to recovery when the plaintiff has been negligent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 146 Wash. 2d 237 - Keller v. City of Spokane · Keller v. City of Spokane

2. “Duty, as defined in this instruction, is not determined by the negligence, if any, of a plaintiff. To avoid jury confusion of the duty of a defendant with the issue of the negligence of a plaintiff, a separate clarifying instruction may be appropriate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Keller v. City of Spokane

3. “A [County] [City] [Town] [State] has a duty to exercise ordinary care in the [construction] [repair] [maintenance] of its public [roads] [streets] [highways] to keep them in a reasonably safe condition for ordinary travel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Unger v. Cauchon