Yardman v. San Juan Downs, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 17 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e agree with the majority view that the rule does apply to strict liability cases. We are not persuaded by the purely semantic argument to the contrary that since “culpable conduct” is not the issue in [a strict liability] case-the defendant is liable, at least prima facie, even if he is not blameworthy in the sense of being willful or negligent, provided that he caused the plaintiffs injury-the rule is inapplicable by its own terms.... A major purpose of Rule 407 is to promote safety by removing the disincentive to make repairs (or take other safety measures) after an accident that would exist if the accident. victim could use those measures as evidence of the defendant’s liability.... The analysis is not fundamentally affected by whether the basis of liability is the defendant’s negligence or his product’s defectiveness or inherent dangerousness. In either case, if evidence of subsequent remedial measures is admissible to prove liability, the incentive to take such measures will be reduced.... [T]he focus of negligence is on the defendant’s conduct, but the focus of strict liability is on the dangerousness of the product regardless of the defendant’s conduct.... But this distinction does not justify a refusal to apply Rule 407 in product cases. In those cases where the defendant would have no incentive to take remedial measures anyway, because the accident was unavoidable, Rule 407 is academic; there will be, by assumption, no subsequent remedial measures. But in other c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garcia v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.

2. “The collateral source rule is designed to preclude an alleged tort-feasor from setting up in mitigation or reduction of damages that the plaintiff has been compensated by insurance in whole or in part, where such insurance was not procured by the alleged wrongdoer,” Yardman v. San Juan Downs, Inc., 120 N.M. 751, 762 , 906 P.2d 742, 753 (Ct. App. 1995) (citations omitted). The collateral source rule is inapplicable here,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United Tort v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC (In re Otero County Hospital Ass'n)

3. “the impeachment exception “must be applied with care, since ‘any evidence of subsequent remedial measures might be thought to contradict and so in a sense impeach a party’s testimony that he was using due care at the time of the accident. ... If this counted as “impeachment” the exception would swallow the rule.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garcia v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.