Clay v. Ferrellgas, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 16 district · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp. (1995), Coates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1999)
2 federal appellate · 16 district · 62 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 Tapia v. Panhandle Steel Erectors Company · Loucks v. Albuquerque National Bank · 108 Wash. 2d 162 - Herron v. Tribune Publishing Co. · Horton v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co. · McGinnis v. Honeywell, Inc.
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]s the risk of danger increases, conduct that amounts to a breach of duty is more likely to demonstrate a culpable mental state. The circumstances define the conduct; a cavalier attitude toward the lawful management of a dangerous product may raise the wrongdoer’s level of conduct to recklessness, whereas a cavalier attitude toward the lawful management of a non-dangerous product may be mere negligence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“one of the defendant corporation’s employees partially converted a vehicle to run on propane by installing a propane tank and leak-testing the tank with fuel, but the employee did not install a vapor barrier or external vent to complete the job. Another employee released the unfinished vehicle to its owner without checking for residual fuel in the tank or warning that the conversion work was incomplete. The vehicle exploded as a result of the leaking residual propane. Viewing the conduct cumulatively, the Supreme Court [of New Mexico] held that “[t]he culpable mental state of the corporation ... may be inferred from the very fact that one employee could be ignorant of the acts or omissions of other employees with potentially disastrous consequences.” The Court also held that evidence that the corporation had failed to file reports with the state for this and numerous other conversion jobs was admissible cumulative conduct. Filing the reports would have resulted in the state inspecting the work and, in the case before the Court, “probably would have prevented the harm.” The plaintiffs did not present a liability theory to the jury based on the corporation’s failure to file the reports, however, so evidence of that failure could not constitute “evidence ... of a contention of negligence and proximate cause.” It could, however, provide proof of “a mental state that was not an essential element of the underlying cause of action.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the actions of the employees [should be viewed] in the aggregate to determine whether [the employer] had the requisite culpable mental state because of the cumulative conduct of the employees.”
2 later decisions 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.