the concern of the Trial Lawyers Association that pre-accident conduct will include a plaintiff’s physical conditioning, or lack thereof, we emphasize that a defendant will still take the victim as he finds him and be liable for the damages the defendant causes. Where, however, damages are caused by the plaintiff’s failure to care for his own safety (not his physical condition), plaintiff may not recover those damages. In the past the appellate courts of this state have not shied away from their continuing responsibilities to ensure that the law remains fair and realistic as changes occur. See, e.g., Hicks v. State, 88 N.M. 588, 544 P.2d 1153 (1975) (abrogating sovereign immunity); Scott v. Rizzo (adopting comparative negligence); Lopez v. Maez, 98 N.M. 625, 651 P.2d 1269 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Vigil v. Arzola, 22 SBB 868 (Ct.App.1983),
holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective recognizing tavernkeepers liability recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability recognizing that substantial change is a defense to a products liability claim recognizing strict product liability actions