Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 84 N.M. 361 - Proctor v. Waxler

Proctor v. Waxler’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
3
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp. (1992), M & M Rental Tools, Inc. v. Milchem, Inc. (1980)

54 state decisions

220197219801990200020102020decided

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 Williamson v. Smith · King Soopers, Inc. v. Mitchell · Gray v. EJ Longyear Company · Dawson v. Payless for Drugs · Crenshaw v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company

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

  1. ““A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c)fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Furthermore, the voluntary exposure in this case, if any there was, is a defense that is applicable only where the injured plaintiff has a reasonable election as to whether she should expose herself to the peril. Gray v. E.J. Longyear Company, 78 N.M. 161 , 429 P.2d 359 (1967). In determining whether there was a reasonable election of plaintiff’s exposure to the peril, several factors must be considered. These factors include the importance of the interest, right or privilege which the plaintiff here was seeking to advance; the probability and gravity of the existing alternatives; and the inconvenience or difficulty of one course of conduct as compared to the other. Any or all of these factors could compel a decision on which reasonable men might well differ and necessarily involve a determination of facts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““People can hurt themselves on almost any condition of the premises. That is certainly true of an ordinary flight of stairs. But it takes more than this to make a condition unreasonably dangerous. If people who are likely to encounter a condition may be expected to take perfectly good care of themselves without further precautions, then the condition is not unreasonably dangerous because the likelihood of harm is slight.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.