Articles Posted in Negligence

A terrible New Mexico car accident occurred when a tire tread peeled off the right rear tire of a 1993 Ford E-350 Super Club Wagon traveling on U.S. Highway 54 in Guadalupe County, New Mexico.  The vehicle, which was en route from Mexico to Colorado, left the road and rolled over three times. Two of the occupants of the vehicle were ejected and died, another occupant was rendered quadriplegic and died from the injuries he sustained in the accident, and several other people who were in the car at the time of the accident also sustained injuries.car accident

A lawsuit was filed against the car manufacturer, the tire manufacturer, and the person who installed the tire on the vehicle in the names of some of the individuals involved in the accident, and through representatives with respect to the other people involved in the accident.  The plaintiffs were all Mexican nationals.  The defendants, also not residents of New Mexico, each moved to dismiss, asserting that there was not personal jurisdiction over the defendants.  The District Court of Santa Fe County, New Mexico conducted a hearing, following which it denied dismissal of the lawsuit.  The defendants then filed applications for interlocutory appeal, which were granted by the Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

On appeal, the Court analyzed whether the defendants had minimum contacts with New Mexico that supported the exercise of specific jurisdiction.  The Court applied the standards of a precedent in which the Court had held that New Mexico courts could properly exercise jurisdiction over a Chinese corporate defendant that manufactured bicycle parts after it placed the allegedly defective parts on the market with the intention that they be distributed and sold in the United States, including in New Mexico.

pallet workshopA U.S. Magistrate Judge recently ruled in favor of a plaintiff seeking discovery to aid his prosecution of a personal injury case.  The plaintiff had sought to obtain certain information from the defendant Home Depot, including a response to an interrogatory posed to the defendant concerning prior customer claims for injuries that the stores allegedly caused by or involving pallets.  The Court held a telephonic hearing on April 18, 2018 that ran over an hour after reviewing submissions by the plaintiff and the defendant.  Over the course of the hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel agreed to narrow the scope of the interrogatory that was a focus of the hearing, and the Court ordered the defendant to respond to the interrogatory as modified.

The plaintiff, via his counsel, filed a Motion to Compel on May 31, 2018, bringing to the Court’s attention that the defendant had not supplemented its discovery responses to include information concerning previous nationwide claims and lawsuits regarding injuries sustained by the defendant’s customers pertaining to slips, trips and falls involving pallets.  The plaintiff was frustrated because a few weeks earlier during the April 18 hearing the request had been modified to facilitate compliance with it.  The defendant had been allowed to respond with information stored in the defendant’s searchable database and, with respect to claims that had ripened into litigation, the defendant could respond by providing only names of the parties to the filed cases, the case numbers, and the districts in which the cases proceeded.

Continue reading

driving-300x225Proposed federal legislation could prevent states including New Mexico from regulating the safety of autonomous vehicles.  These vehicles are sometimes referred to as “driverless.”  If the proposed federal laws are enacted, they could limit the role of states to registration and licensing of driverless vehicles and oversight over safety inspections, traffic laws and crash investigations.

The proposed legislation is controversial for several reasons.  On the one hand, building driverless vehicles in the United States could be good for domestic auto manufacturing.  The technology could potentially also reduce collisions caused by errors of tired, distracted or drunk drivers.  Some argue that a patchwork of state regulations could cause delays and complications.  On the other hand, public safety and consumer protection are issues because there is potential for accidents.  To address these important issues, the federal government would need to set enforceable standards and rules for these innovative forms of transportation, including for example, rules with respect to manufacturing.  How long it would take to develop an effective federal regulatory system for driverless vehicles and how a system would work remains to be determined.

Continue reading

Scales of JusticeIn some cases, a person who brings a civil law suit can decide whether to assert claims under state law, federal law, or both.  The decision comes with consequences because a defendant may prefer to defend the suit or seek its dismissal in state court under some circumstances, and federal court in others.  In a recent case, the plaintiff filed his complaint in the Eleventh Judicial District of the County of San Juan, in a New Mexico state court.  His claims were based on a traffic stop that occurred in a manner that he alleged was actionable under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.

The defendants, a group that includes government entities, removed the plaintiff’s complaint to federal district court, asserting that there was federal question jurisdiction, and filed a motion seeking to have the complaint dismissed on the basis of purported failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.  Instead of filing a response to the motion addressing the defendants’ arguments in support of dismissal, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court, where he had filed his complaint and preferred to proceed.

The plaintiff made several contentions in support of remanding the case, including that the defendants improperly removed the case from state court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction because he had not pleaded a federal cause of action in his complaint and that the due process rights referenced in his complaint are rights conferred under New Mexico state law.  The court agreed with the plaintiff that the manner in which he had pleaded his complaint did not transform a state law tort claim into a federal constitutional claim.  The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff’s claims should be treated as federal law claims because he had sought punitive damages that are not available under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.  The court further reasoned that, even were the court to construe the complaint as raising an embedded federal constitutional law claim, the plaintiff’s right to relief depended on the construction and application of New Mexico state law.  Ultimately, the court concluded it was appropriate to send the case back to state court, where the plaintiff had filed his complaint and wished to proceed, and accordingly remanded to the Eleventh Judicial District of the County of San Juan.

Large Vehicle
Claims are subject to dismissal through summary judgment when a party can establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to the claims, and the claims cannot succeed as a matter of law.  A summary judgment motion can seek the dismissal of a complaint in its entirety or be a partial summary judgment motion directed at some of the claims asserted in a complaint.  In a recent case, plaintiffs filed suit against the driver of a tractor trailer and the freight line that owned the vehicle he was driving at the time of the collision with the plaintiffs’ vehicle.

The plaintiffs asserted claims of negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment and sought an award of punitive damages.  The defendants removed the case from the New Mexico state court in which the plaintiffs had filed their complaint to a New Mexico federal district court, and they filed a motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.  The defendants asserted that the record supported the dismissal of the negligent entrustment and punitive damages claims as a matter of law.  The plaintiffs did not file a response in opposition.  Still, the Court had to assess whether the defendants had met their initial responsibility of demonstrating a basis for partial summary judgment.

The Court studied the evidence that the defendants had submitted and their arguments.  With respect to the negligent entrustment claim, the defendants had argued that the record did not support liability because the undisputed facts showed that the driver did not have a record of citations for traffic violations and had passed a drug test on the day of the accident.  The record before the Court also showed that the driver had only been in one accident previously, in which a vehicle had backed into the truck he was driving, had conducted a pre-trip inspection of the tractor trailer, was not using his cell phone at the time of the accident, was driving with low beams, was not exceeding the speed limit, and had tried to avoid the plaintiffs’ vehicle before the collision occurred that had given rise to their alleged damages.  With this record before it, the Court accepted the defendants’ contention that there was no evidence presented that the owner of the truck knew or should have known that the driver would operate it in a manner that would create an unreasonable risk of harm to others.  As a result, and without evidence to counter by the plaintiffs, the Court was amenable to granting the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the negligent entrustment claim.

RappellingThe United States District Court for the District of New Mexico has handed down a ruling denying a motion to dismiss a New Mexico personal injury complaint alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.  The court rejected the defendant’s contention that a waiver signed by the plaintiff should result in the dismissal of her claims.

The plaintiff in this case was a civilian who was injured at a U.S. Air Force Base.  According to the court’s ruling, she had gone there with a group of her coworkers to participate in team building exercises.  One of these exercises involved rappelling down a tower. The plaintiff and her coworkers were each handed a waiver of liability form, with the Sergeant handing them out explaining that the waivers were documents “relieving the Air Force from responsibility for injuries and that the participants had to understand they were taking a risk by rappelling.”

The plaintiff did not recall a discussion of specific risks, including, for example, falling or the safety line not working.  She signed the waiver, took some training after explaining she had no experience, and ascended to the top of the rappelling tower.  She fell and was thereafter moved and assessed.  One of her coworkers then took her to the hospital in an ambulance.