Rice v. Sabir’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In analyzing duty, the court must balance the foreseeability and gravity of the potential risk of harm to a plaintiff against the burden imposed on the defendant in protecting against that harm. McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership, 937 S.W.2d 891, 902 (Tenn.1996). A “risk is unreasonable and gives rise to a duty to act with due care if the foreseeable probability and gravity of harm posed by defendant’s conduct outweigh the burden upon defendant to engage in alternative conduct that would have prevented the harm.” McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150, 153 (Tenn.1995).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc. · Begley v. State

2. “(1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) conduct by the defendant falling below the applicable standard of care that amounts to a breach of that duty; (3) an injury or loss; (4) causation in fact; and (5) proximate, or legal, causation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jennifer Walden v. Central Parking System of Tennessee, Inc. · 814 F. Supp. 2d 775 - ARVEST BANK v. Byrd

3. “The duty imposed on the premises owner or occupier, however, does not include the responsibility to remove or warn against “conditions from which no unreasonable risk was to be anticipated, or from those which the occupier neither knew about nor could have discovered with reasonable care.” Prosser and Keeton on Torts, supra, § 61 at 426. In this regard, “the mere existence of a defect or danger is generally insufficient to establish liability, unless it is shown to be of such a character or of such duration that the jury may reasonably conclude that due care would have discovered it.” Id. at 426-27. As we explained in Doe v. Linder Const. Co., 845 S.W.2d 173, 178 (Tenn. 1992):- Foreseeability is the test of negligence. If the injury which occurred could not have been reasonably foreseen, the duty of care does not arise, and even though the act of the defen dant in fact caused the injury, there is no negligence and no liability. ‘[T]he plaintiff must show that the injury was a reasonably foreseeable probability, not just a remote possibility, and that some action within the [defendant’s] power more probably than not would have prevented the injury.’ (emphasis added) (citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Micah Seamus Reynolds v. Bethany Rich