8 Cal. 3d 136 - Luque v. McLean’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 168 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 185 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably 20 Cal. 3d 413 - Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978), 20 Cal. 3d 725 - Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978)
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 168 state decisions — followed in 15 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 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. · 63 Cal. 2d 9 - Seely v. White Motor Co. · Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. · 8 Cal. 3d 121 - Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.
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 185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`the user or consumer must become aware of the defect and danger and still proceed unreasonably to make use of the product.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““Furthermore, the policy underlying the doctrine of strict liability compels the conclusion that recovery should not be limited to cases involving latent defects. ‘The purpose of such liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.’ * * * It would indeed be anomalous to allow a plaintiff to prove that a manufacturer was negligent in marketing an obviously defective product, but to preclude him from establishing the manufacturer’s strict liability for doing the same thing. The result would be to immunize from strict liability manufacturers who callously ignore patent dangers in their products while subjecting to such liability those who innocently market products with latent defects.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The defendants, retailer and distributor, are not required under the law to deliver a product which is accident-proof; however, they are subject to liability to the plaintiff for any injury suffered by him if the plaintiff establishes by a preponderance of the evidence all of the facts necessary to prove each of the following conditions : Third: The plaintiff was unaware of the claimed defect; Fifth: The defect, if it existed, made the product unreasonably dangerous and unsafe for its intended use. Plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the above conditions as a basis for his recovery.”
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.