Dillworth v. Gambardella’s Empirical Analysis
970 F.2d 1113 · 1992
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently November 2012
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 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 Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad · Springrose v. Willmore · Meistrich v. Casino Arena Attractions, Inc. · Sunday v. Stratton Corp. · Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning Board
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To say that inherent risks are assumed by the sports participants “as a matter of law” is of little solace to defendants when the question remains: what risks in a sport are inherent, obvious or necessary to its participation, a question that ordinarily must be resolved by the jury.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“some collisions between skiers may be as a result of the obvious and necessary risks inherent in skiing, and accidents might occur despite the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care and without negligence by either skier.... Like all others, skiers owe that degree of care an ordinary prudent person would exercise under like or similar circumstances. One skier is not the insurer of another skier’s safety nor, absent negligence, is one skier liable to another for inadvertent or accidental contact. ... Thus... skiers who lose control even while exercising due care — that is, have breached no duty owed to other skiers — may pose a danger which is inherent, obvious and necessary to participate in the sport of skiing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ricci v. Schoultz · Horvath v. Ish“the only difference between Wright and Sunday is in their results, not in the principles of controlling law. In Wright , the defendant did not breach any duty it owed to plaintiff; in Sunday , it did. In both cases, though, the defendant's dutyto warn of or correct dangers which in the exercise of reasonable prudence in the circumstances could have been foreseen and correctedwas the same.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.