COVID-19 Update: How We Are Serving and Protecting Our Clients

Articles Posted in Personal Injury

by

The pre-trial discovery process can enable parties to lawsuits in New Mexico to obtain information they would not otherwise be able to access.  A ruling by a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico shows that, while discovery in personal injury cases can be broad, federal law also sets limits on what is potentially discoverable.

The plaintiff in the discovery dispute at issue brought a lawsuit seeking to recover damages for injuries she allegedly suffered following implantation of a surgical mesh product intended for treatment of medical conditions of the female pelvis.  Among the defendants she sued were manufacturers and sellers of the surgical mesh and the doctor who allegedly recommended and implanted the mesh.

The underlying lawsuit has a somewhat complex procedural history because complications following surgical mesh implantations have occurred in multiple jurisdictions, and there are multiple courts hearing related disputes.  In this case, one of the corporate defendants removed the plaintiff’s lawsuit from New Mexico state court to federal court based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.  Then some aspects of the plaintiff’s lawsuit were swept into multi-district federal litigation in West Virginia.  The case was ultimately remanded to the District of New Mexico, after some of the defendants were dismissed, for resolution of the claims the plaintiff asserted against the doctor who allegedly recommended and implanted the mesh.  The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint alleging that the doctor who treated her had committed medical negligence by implanting the mesh in her body.

Continue reading

by

Recently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which hears appeals from jurisdictions including the District of New Mexico, upheld a ruling dismissing a personal injury suit based on a contractual one-year suit limitation provision.

The underlying personal injury suit was filed more than one year but less than two years after a house fire, which took the life of a woman who was living in the house.  Representatives of the woman’s heir and of the woman’s estate sued the home security company that had purportedly provided home protection services.  For $37.99 a month, the company had promised round the clock monitoring services.  Its advertising was attention-getting and included promises of 24/7 professional monitoring centers that would address alarms immediately to make sure help was on the way.  Yet, after receiving an alert late at night, the company made some calls from an unidentified number to try to investigate, but did not send help to the house or call the police or fire departments for help.

The contract pursuant to which the company provided its services did not include the promises made in the company’s advertising campaigns.  The contract purported to limit liability to the lesser of $300 or 6 times the monthly service fee, and included a one-year suit limitation provision.

Continue reading

by

Recently, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico handed down a ruling denying an insurance company’s motion to intervene.  The insurance company allegedly had paid the plaintiff workers’ compensation benefits under California law, and asserted that it should be allowed to intervene to assert a subrogation right to recover sums it paid out from any recovery the plaintiff achieved against the trucking company allegedly responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The accident underlying the plaintiff’s personal injury suit occurred on westbound Interstate 40 in McKinley County, New Mexico.  According to the plaintiff’s complaint, traffic was backed up at the time of the accident because the road was under construction.  The complaint further alleges that a truck driver was driving on cruise control at a speed of 66 miles per hour.  As the driver approached a mile marker, he was allegedly looking down.  When the truck he was driving was a second away from a pickup truck, the driver of the pickup truck looked up.  Tragically, it was too late to stop the collision, which allegedly resulted in a fire and chain reaction of accidents on the interstate.

Among those sustaining serious personal injuries was the plaintiff, who was en route to California at the time, according to the complaint he filed in New Mexico’s 11th Judicial District Court against the truck driver, the trucking company that employed the driver and corporate affiliates of the trucking company.  The trucking company removed the complaint from the state court in which it had been filed to federal court.

Continue reading

by

In a recent ruling, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied summary judgment to the sole defendant, an out of state tire manufacturer.  The case before the court arose after a tire blow out that allegedly was caused by manufacturing and design defects.  Allegedly after the tire blew out, a tragic single-vehicle accident occurred in which a pickup truck rolled over resulting in several people being injured and one person dying.

As part of its defense, the tire manufacturer unsuccessfully moved the court to enter a partial summary judgment in its favor holding that the plaintiffs could not recover compensatory damages for aggravating circumstances under New Mexico law.

Under New Mexico law, the personal representative of a wrongful death estate can recover compensatory damages on behalf of the estate.  When determining whether it is appropriate to award compensatory damages, a New Mexico jury can consider mitigating or aggravating circumstance attending the allegedly wrongful act, neglect, or default.  While compensatory damages generally are made available so that injured parties are made whole, compensatory damages under New Mexico’s wrongful death statute also further the interest of deterrence.  Compensatory damages in aid of the public policy interest in deterrence can be awarded even in instances where punitive damages cannot be awarded.
Continue reading

by

A recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico reflects some of the challenges plaintiffs can encounter when naming a city and its mayor as defendants in a federal complaint seeking recourse for allegedly injurious conditions.

Last November a person filed a federal complaint against the City of Albuquerque and its Mayor, asserting claims for unlawful taking under the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions and related claims for trespass and nuisance.  The plaintiff’s lawsuit arose from the city’s alleged catch and release of feral cats and kittens as part of a trap, neuter and release (“TNR”) program.  Under the TNR program, the plaintiff alleged, cats and kittens are trapped, sterilized, vaccinated and released.  The plaintiff alleged that, as a result, she and her neighbors and children are exposed to an extreme nuisance, disease, property damage and a reduction in property values, and that the problem is continuing because the TNR program is continuing.  The complaint attracted the attention of local news outlet KRQE, which ran a story reporting that, as of September 2019, 2,100 cats had been picked up of which 1,700 had been re-released.

The defendants responded to the complaint by filing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Under this rule a federal court is to review a complaint to assess whether its factual allegations state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.

Continue reading

by

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico recently denied a dismissal motion filed on behalf of  defendants including the Santa Fe Public Schools. The plaintiffs had brought a lawsuit in state court based on alleged sexual abuse by their fourth grade teacher. The motion had sought dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the plaintiffs’ claims under federal and state law were time barred.

By the time the court adjudicated the motion to dismiss their claims the plaintiffs were over 24 years old.  The teacher and the school who has been sued removed the case to federal court, and sought dismissal of the claims based on alleged untimeliness.

The court first analyzed whether the applicable statute of limitations warranted dismissal of the plaintiffs’ federal claims.  The court explained that, with respect to the causes of action based on federal law, federal courts apply the statute of limitations and tolling laws of the relevant state.  In this case, New Mexico law provided a three year statute of limitations, and it was clear from the complaint that it was brought after the expiration of the three year period.  Accordingly, the court analyzed whether there was a basis to toll the statute of limitations with respect to the federal claims.  The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ alleged incapacity provided a basis for tolling the statute of limitations.  The plaintiffs had alleged that they had suffered from problems including post-traumatic stress, dissociation and drug addiction.  The court accepted that these allegations plausibly established incapacitation, for purposes of assessing the merits of the motion to dismiss.  The court also explained that whether the plaintiffs’ condition, in fact, incapacitated them was an issue that should be deferred until the parties brought summary judgment motions or tried the case.

Continue reading

by

A recent opinion addresses whether a company that leases a store is liable for damages in a New Mexico personal injury suit, after a customer is attacked in a parking lot used by the store’s customers.

Allegedly two people were trying to purchase a video game console from an electronic gaming store in Santa Fe, and were asked to leave because they were attempting to make the purchase with a fraudulent credit card.  The man standing behind them succeeded in purchasing a video game console, left the store and went to the parking lot. He sued the company that owned the store after being attacked in the parking lot by the people who had been ahead of him in line at the store, who had been unsuccessful in buying a video game console.

The plaintiff did not name as a defendant to the lawsuit the landlord of the store.  The lease between the owner of the store, a company that the defendant had named in his lawsuit, and the landlord who leased the store its space, a company that the defendant had not named in the lawsuit, provided that the parking lot was a common area to be used by tenants as a common area.  The lease also reserved control of the parking lot to the landlord.

Continue reading

by

Sometimes a person is not liable for the payment of damages resulting from an accident.  Even though the person’s conduct was among the causes of the accident, the conduct at issue is considered by a court to not have been the accident’s proximate cause.  A recent ruling by a federal district court granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss New Mexico wrongful death claims on the basis that the defendant’s conduct was not the proximate cause of the death.

Allegedly, a woman who had dogs in her home also had a home alarm system professionally installed.  She asked one of her neighbors to be a back-up contact person with the company that had installed the alarm.  Her neighbor agreed.  Also, she frequently asked her neighbor to check in on the dogs when she was not home.  The neighbor would go check on the dogs when asked.  This was their arrangement.

One day, the home alarm went off, and the company that had installed it contacted the neighbor.  The woman whose house was secured by the home alarm also contacted her, asking that she enter the home and check on the dogs.  She did as she was asked and went to check on the neighbor’s home and dogs.  When law enforcement officers came to the house to investigate, she spoke with a detective.  He asked her some questions.  She walked with him toward the back of a truck when she was walking back to her own home.  A deputy was sitting in the driver’s seat of the truck at the time.  The deputy received a call dispatching him to another location.  While he was driving his vehicle in reverse to head to the destination to which he had been dispatched, he struck the neighbor, who was still on the property of the home with the alarm that had gone off.  She died.

Continue reading

by

New Mexico personal injury lawsuits often proceed in New Mexico’s state courts.  A personal injury lawsuit can be removed from state court to federal court if it meets criteria set forth by federal law for removal.  It is also possible, in some instances, to remand a case that was filed in state court and removed to federal court back to state court.

A recent ruling by the Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand a case that had been filed in state court and removed to this federal trial court.  Allegedly the plaintiff was injured after he slipped on a puddle of oil in the defendant’s drive-in restaurant and fell.  Before bringing a lawsuit the plaintiff tried to resolve the case on an out-of-court basis.  Through counsel, he sent a demand letter to the defendant.  The demand letter detailed the plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages; they included medical expenses, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.  According to the court, the plaintiff’s demand letter estimated the plaintiff’s damages to be $37,659 on the low end and $157,659 on the high end.  The plaintiff also sought exemplary (i.e. punitive) damages.

According to the court, the plaintiff offered to settle his claims for $75,000 and the defendant countered with a settlement offer of $5,000.  The parties were unable to bridge the gap between their settlement offers and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court. The defendant reacted by removing the lawsuit to federal court.  The plaintiff then filed a motion seeking to remand the case to state court, on the basis that the amount in controversy was $20,000.

Continue reading

by

It is possible to alter the outcome of a jury trial in New Mexico personal injury cases by prosecuting post-trial motions and appeals.  A recent ruling handed down by an Albuquerque federal court reflects the difficulties inherent in winning post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or new trial.

In May of 2019, plaintiffs lost a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.  After the jury delivered a unanimous verdict in favor of the defense, the plaintiffs moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b).  In the alternative, the plaintiffs moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a).  Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), the court could (1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict; (2) order a new trial; or (3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.  Similarly, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), the court was empowered to grant a new trial on all or some of the issues.

The plaintiffs contended in post-trial motions that evidence presented at trial showed that the defendant negligently risked his life and the lives of other pedestrians and motorists by failing to seek a Vision Report and presenting it to the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD); failing to report his losses of consciousness to the MVD; continuing to drive although he knew his ability to drive was substantially impaired; and driving without using supplemental oxygen.  After reciting these grounds for relief from the jury verdict, the court observed that they ignored evidence to the contrary that had been presented to the jury for consideration that supported the jury’s conclusion that the defendant had not been negligent.  The evidence discussed by the court included the testimony of the defendant’s optometrist that the defendant’s vision was good enough to drive and that the defendant had filled out MVD paperwork.  By the time of trial the MVD paperwork allegedly could not be located.  The court reasoned that the inability to locate the paperwork did not give rise to an inference that the paperwork had not been submitted to the MVD.  The court also observed that testimony had been presented that the defendant would have had to take a vision exam when renewing his driver’s license one month prior to the accident.

Continue reading