Scott v. Rizzo’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 12 district · 213 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 252 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1984), 85 Ill. 2d 1 - Alvis v. Ribar (1981)
10 federal appellate · 12 district · 213 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. · 13 Cal. 3d 804 - Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co. · 20 Cal. 3d 725 - Daly v. General Motors Corp. · 280 So. 2d 431 - Hoffman v. Jones · Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas 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 252 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“apportionment of fault between or among negligent parties whose negligence proximately caused any part of a loss or injury.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The demise of contributory negligence as a defense can be justified from several points of view. The predominant argument for its abandonment rests, of course, upon the undeniable inequity and injustice in casting an entire loss upon a plaintiff whose negligence combined with another’s negligence in causing the loss suffered, no matter how trifling plaintiff’s negligence might be. Liability based on fault is the cornerstone of tort law, and a system such as contributory negligence which permits one of the con tributing wrongdoers to avoid all liability simply does not serve any principle of fault liability.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“With respect to the suggestion that we should also consider the effect of the comparative negligence doctrine upon strict liability claims, we need not decide that point at this time. We do make some observations, however, relying upon the capability of the trial judge to resolve such issues when confronted with a special factual situation requiring adaptation of the rule of comparative negligence: (1) Plaintiff’s “conventional” contributory negligence has been held to be inapplicable as an affirmative defense in strict liability cases. Jasper v. Skyhook Corp., 89 N.M. 98 , 547 P.2d 1140 (Ct.App.1976), rev’d on other grounds, 90 N.M. 143 , 560 P.2d 934 (1977). Nevertheless, New Mexico does not equate “strict” liability with “absolute” liability; plaintiff’s conduct is still a material, although limited, issue. (2) Under the view that the comparative negligence doctrine delineates a comparative causation analysis, some courts logically have extended the application of the rule to strict liability design cases, reasoning that the consideration of the jury, under proper instructions, should be focused upon the part played by plaintiff’s “misconduct” (rather than his “negligence”) which contributed to the injury suffered by use of defendant’s defective product. The “misconduct” phrase would embrace such defenses as assumption of risk, misuse or abnormal use of the product, or the “negligence” concept of voluntarily and unreasonably proceeding to encounter a known danger. Such an ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.