New Mexico Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

In September, the federal government sent letters to gun dealers nationwide informing them that medical marijuana card holders in states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana fell within the category of "unlawful drug users"/"addicts", to whom it was illegal to sell a gun. Outrage ensued, and what appears to be the first lawsuit challenging the federal policy was filed law week by a woman whose local gun dealer refused to sell to her because he knew her to be a medical marijuana user. The medical marijuana community has taken solace in the fact that, unless a gun dealer has personal knowledge that an individual is a medical marijuana cardholder, the only apparent way to be identified as such is through self-disclosure. At present, there do not appear to be any mechanisms or requirements for a gun dealer to determine whether the name of a would-be purchaser appears on a list of state medical marijuana card-holders. Thus, if a gun license applicant does not check the "unlawful drug user/addict" box on the gun license application, he or she may be able to purchase the gun notwithstanding his or her use of medical marijuana.

One big question that remains unanswered, however, is how, if at all, the federal government will choose to prosecute the possession of a gun by a medical marijuana cardholder or producer. The unlawful possession of a firearm is one of the more aggressively prosecuted federal offenses, particularly when that possession arises in connection with controlled substances. And while the federal disruption of medical marijuana programs has thus far been sporadic, the federal government seems less likely to exercise similar restraint in prosecuting unlawful possession of a firearm. New Mexico's medical marijuana program, which attempts to disperse licensed marijuana cultivation among non-profit producers and users alike, appears to be especially exposed to the chilling effect of the federal medical marijuana/gun policy since federal penalties for possessing a gun while distributing controlled substances are exponentially higher than those for the simple illegal possession of a gun. It seems likely that we will soon see a high profile federal prosecution of a medical marijuana user and/or producer who was found in possession of a firearm.

Critical developments in New Mexico uninsured motorist law could provide substantial assistance to people who have suffered serious personal injuries cause by uninsured or under-insured drivers. This could be true even for injured persons who have already settled their uninsured or under-insured motorists claim.

Uninsured motorist coverage is a type of insurance coverage which is purchased from your automobile insurance company. It protects you from damages which may be inflicted by an uninsured driver because your company will step-in and compensate you for all of the damages the uninsured motorist is legally liable for, at least up to the amount of coverage you purchased.

Under-insured motorist coverage is similar; it applies in situations where you have purchased more coverage to protect yourself than the amount of coverage carried by the person who hurt you. For example, let's say that a New Mexico drunk driver causes an accident in which you are injured. Even if he has liability insurance, he may only carry the required minimum coverage of $25,000.00. But if you were hospitalized for even a few days, your medical bills could exceed that amount. And there are, of course, other types of losses, such as lost wages, pain and suffering, etc. This is why it is a good idea to purchase sufficient uninsured motorist coverage. If you have purchased more than $25,000.00 of protection for yourself, you would be able to ask your insurance company to step in and cover the damages which exceed the amount of the at-fault driver's coverage—up to the amount of insurance you purchased for your own protection.

Many people do not even know if they have uninsured motorist coverage, although most do, or understand how it protects them.

The new development in New Mexico law have to do with rules governing how this protection must be offered and presented by insurance companies to their customers. Any person who has suffered serious damages which exceed the amount an at-fault driver's insurance coverage should contact a lawyer if the amount of their own uninsured motorist coverage is less than the amount of their own liability coverage. For example, if you have $100,000.00 in liability coverage, but only $25,000.00 in uninsured/underinsured coverage, you should contact an attorney if you were injured by either an uninsured motorist or by a driver who carried insufficient insurance to cover your damages.

A recent Clovis, New Mexico car accident, in addition to being a tragic story, highlights New Mexico government liability law, specifically, New Mexico's Tort Claims Notice requirements.

The fatal New Mexico accident occurred when a Clovis police officer ran a stop sign near Grand and Sycamore and struck another vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle was taken to University of New Mexico hospital and is listed in critical condition. Sadly the passenger died as a result of the injuries.

Under New Mexico law, each accident victim is entitled to pursue a New Mexico wrongful death claim. However, under the letter of the law, there is immediate action taken. Depending on the severity of her injuries, the accident survivor may have only three or six months to place the government on notice that there may be a potential claim. With respect to the deceased accident victim, her family and loved ones may only have six months.

These limits arise from the New Mexico Tort Claims Act that requires near immediate notice to the correct branches of the government. Although some New Mexico wrongful death lawyers have been successful in challenging these requirements, there nonetheless remains various legal requirement that must be followed while New Mexico accident victims must also cope with their injuries.

Are New Mexico class action cases soon to be banned. That is the questions the Supreme Court will answer next week as they decide the future of not just New Mexico class action cases, but all class action matters across the entire nation.

The case going before the Court involves AT&T and the essential question they must decide is whether companies can prohibit class action lawsuits with language embedded in there contracts. If successful, large business will likely all add such language preventing any court from allowing a consumer to take on a massive corporation.

The decision, whichever way it goes, is going to be one of the more monumental cases to address the so called “tort reform” movement.

News of a recent Albuquerque car accident on Golf Course Rd raises the question of whether New Mexico law allows for a recovery in single vehicle accidents.

Just as the name sounds, single vehicle accidents are those in which only one vehicle is damaged. Under New Mexico law, passengers involved in single vehicle accidents will almost always have a case to pursue. In some situations the driver may also have a claim. This arrises in situations where the accident was caused, or contributed to by: an unknown vehicle, a dangerous condition of road, or a defective vehicle.

Very often these claims go un-pursued when the injury victims mistakenly believe there is nothing that can be done. To the contrary, single vehicle accidents, just like all Albuquerque car accidents, may allow for the injured victims to recover.

For example, in the recent Albuquerque car accident on Golf Course Rd, initial media reports suggest that the vehicle made contact with a guardrail. Regardless of what caused the vehicle to lose control, if it is found that the guard rail was maintained defectively, there may be a viable claim for those injured to pursue.

Various jails have been on the news lately for being home to various sexual assaults and rapes. Similarly, a news story recently surfaced that college professors in Florida kept an off campus apartment specifically to bring young co-eds to. With all this sexual assault news, the questions arises, when can a victim recover money damages for a sexual assault or rape?

At the Fine Law Firm, our New Mexico sexual assault attorneys have handled numerous cases in which our clients were the victims of violent sexual attacks as well as inappropriate sexual relationships. In many of these New Mexico sexual assault cases, the questions is not so much whether the plaintiff can win, but rather whether the plaintiff can recover.

This is because unless the attacker has substantial assets, it is necessary to she that he or she performed inappropriate acts while acting in another capacity. Typically, this means sexual relationships between teacher and student, jail guard and inmate, police officer and suspect, etc... This means that in addition to numerous other factors, one primary issue is whether the wrongdoer has the ability to be financially responsible for the harm caused.

New Mexico jail sexual abuse is at the forefront recently with KOB.com reporting that an MDC guard was discovered to have had a "sexual relationship" with an inmate. There is no such thing as a guard having a "sexual relationship" with an inmate. Under the laws of the country and this State, that is rape. There is no such thing as consensual sex between a guard and an inmate, period. As legislatures have universally agreed, a guard having a "sexual relationship" with an inmate is one the most abhorrent abuses of power in the long history of mankind. There are, however, procedural hurdles that powerful private prison lobbies have succeeded in placing between prison rape victims and the judicial system. If this has happened to you, or someone who looks to you for advice, contact an experienced prison abuse law firm.

New Mexico premises liability, or New Mexico slip and fall cases, whatever name they go by, they generally involve injury of a customer or guest that the property owner is responsible for. Most often these cases involve dangerous conditions or hazardous obstacles that cause injury. Generally, in these cases, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the owner failed to keep the property reasonably safe for use by the visitor.

The New Mexico Supreme Court recently applied premises liability law to America’s pastime, a trip to the ballpark. The case arose when a young child was seated in a picnic area and was struck by a ball during batting practice. Although errant foul balls are commonplace in American ballparks, the plaintiff argued that the stadium should be held responsible for constructing an unprotected picnic area where people sit facing away from the field.

Initially, the District Court judge stated that what is affectionately known as the “baseball rule” applies requiring in limited duty of only screening out the areas immediately behind home plate. Accordingly, the case was dismissed.

On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that a baseball stadium is not allowed to simply protect the fans behind home plate to satisfy its legal obligation to spectators. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not say that the conduct by the baseball stadium was in fact negligence. Rather the court said that New Mexico’s typical approach to premises liability cases should apply to injuries at the ballpark. This means that the duty owed by this stadium is that of ordinary care to keep the premises reasonably safe for the visitor regardless of whether or not a dangerous condition his obvious. More importantly, the Supreme Court opinion means that this is an issue worthy of discussion before a jury.

As a baseball fan, I’m admittedly mixed. Alarmists will suggest that now all stadiums will be enclosed in glass, and that it is another example of plaintiff’s avoiding personal responsibility. By the same token, it seems reasonable to allow a jury to decide if it is negligent to hold parties where backs are turned to batting practice bombs flying over walls.

Wither way, the Supreme Court decision places additional value on premises liability analysis and law, and if anything limits property owners’ ability to avoid taking resonable action to protect visitors.

Obviously, the most important settlement consideration to the plaintiff in a personal injury case is his/her net recovery. Therefore, the plaintiff's attorney must understand the role of the various parties who make a claim against the settlement proceeds. The plaintiff's net recovery is enhanced by proper handling of these claims. In addition, the plaintiff must be aware of the potential consequences of not handling these claims correctly.
Subrogation arises between an insurer and its insured, allowing the insurer to recover payments against the person who caused the loss. Subrogation “allows an insurer who has fully compensated the insured to step into the shoes of the insured and collect what it has paid from the wrongdoer.” Amica Mut. Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Maloney, 120 N.M. 523, 527, 903 P.2d 834, 838 (1995). Subrogation arises “by operation of law.” Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 101 N.M. 148, 149, 679 P.2d 816, 817 (1995). Subrogation also arises in the suretyship context. See NM State Highway & Transp. Dep’t v. Gulf Ins. Co., 2000-NMCA-007, ¶11, 128 N.M. 634, 996 P.2d 424.

New Mexico has applied subrogation principles only in disputes involving insurers. Gulf Insurance Co. v. Cottone, 2006-NMCA-150, ¶11, 140 N.M. 728, 148 P.3d 814. Cottone arose from a chain reaction auto accident. A person injured in the accident sued (only) a driver, insured by Gulf Insurance Co. Gulf then sought reimbursement from others allegedly at fault for the accident. Gulf argued it became subrogated to the claims of the injured party when it settled with her. The court rejected this attempt to expand the concept of subrogation, which traditionally has been limited to insurance companies that had paid their own insureds. The reasons for this rejection were (1) the doctrine of comparative fault meant that Gulf had only paid damages by which its insured was responsible and, therefore, had no claim against the other parties, (2) New Mexico does not allow an assignment of personal injury claims, and (3) the release signed by the injured party did not release anyone other than Gulf’s insured.
An insurance company providing uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage is entitled to reimbursement out of the proceeds of any recovery which might be obtained from the person(s) responsible for the accident (the “tortfeasors”). See NMAC, Dept. of Insurance Regulations, §12.3.17.9.2. The company also has a subrogation right, and may sue the uninsured tortfeasor to recover any amounts it may have paid. Id, §12.3.17.9.4. The insured must cooperate in any subrogation suit brought by the carrier, and the carrier could compel joinder of an uncooperative insured to serve as an “involuntary plaintiff.” §12.3.17.9.11.
Special considerations apply in workers compensation cases. If the employer paid the premiums for the uninsured motorist coverage, reimbursement is handled normally. See Section 52-5-17C. (As a practical matter, most employers have figured out that they can opt not to have uninsured motorist coverage to cover their employees.) On the other hand, if the worker pays the premiums of the uninsured motorist coverage, the employee is not required to reimburse the workers’ compensation carrier. Id. Moreover, this subsection does not entitle the UM carrier to a credit or offset for the amount of workers’ compensation benefit paid to the worker. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co. v. Vigil, 1996-NMCA-062, 121 N.M. 812, 918 P.2d 728.

New Mexico drunk driving accidents are problems. Heck, New Mexico DWI itself is a problem. When somebody is charged and convicted with DWI, we get bothered and hope that it wont happen again. When somebody gets a second DWI there is more anger that it happened again. When a New Mexico drunk driver picks up his or her third, fourth, or fifth DWI it becomes clear that he or she is basically beyond rehabilitation and the frustration focuses on the system that allows the ongoing problems.

Well, its hard to describe what to think when a New Mexico driver picks up his 22 DWI arrests. That is exactly what happened to Delano Vigil. During his last escapade he was arrested and subsequently blew .39 blood alcohol level. Thats right, .39. It seems that Delano is trying to set two New Mexico records: the most drunk driving arrests, and the highest blood alcohol level.

Prior to his last arrest Delano had been charged 5 times in New Mexico and another 16 elsewhere. However, it appears that he wont be going anywhere for a while. Delano must now answer to warrants in San Miguel County, Bernalillo County, and Sandoval County. All warrants seem to stem from drunk driving related offenses.

As of right now, Delano is a poster buy for change in New Mexico drunk driving laws. Honestly though, as a lawyer who sues New Mexico drunk drivers, I’m not convinced that any law will keep prevent a 23rd, 24th, or 25th arrest so long has he has any access to a car. Hopefully I’m wrong.

A New Mexico drunk driver has been arrested in connection with the wrongful death accident of an Espanola man. According to reports, the drunk driver was traveling 60 mph down a residential street with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Also in the car with the New Mexico drunk driver were two female passengers.

After the Espanola accident the drunk driver admitted to drinking vodka and more specifically, to buying it from a liquor store. If this is not enough, the drunk driver was only 18 years old, well under the required 21 years old to purchase alcohol in New Mexico.

In situations such as this, the estate of the deceased Espanola man may be able to pursue a claim not just against the drunk driver’s insurance, but also a dram shop case against the liquor store that sold alcohol to an underage customer. While authorities are still investigating the accident, they have not yet released the name of the liquor store.

New Mexico cases against liquor establishments, also called New Mexico dram shop cases, are intended to keep those who sell alcohol responsible. It is important for these New Mexico establishments not to place their goal of making money about keeping the community safe. When these liquor stores act responsibly, they run the risk of becoming liable for damages caused as a result of their own negligence.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals is receiving national attention for its recent decision regarding the “baseball rule.” The baseball rule is known to exempt professional teams from liability when bats or balls go flying into the stands. This limit on liability exists so long as the stadium has the area and immediately behind home plate fenced off.

The case arose when a New Mexico child was struck in the head by a homerun ball at Isotopes Park in Albuquerque. The parents contended that the baseball team was partially responsible for the child's serious injury and the Court of Appeals was recently tasked with deciding the matter.

I have to admit, I am somewhat mixed on the decision. As a New Mexico plaintiff’s attorney, I am all for helping New Mexico injury victims. However, as a baseball fan, I enjoy the ability to have an unobstructed view of the action and the possibility of catching a ball here or there. I can’t help but wonder if part of the New Mexico Court’s decision has to do with the fact that the injury occurred at a picnic area adjacent to the outfield wall.

Arguably, it would be more prudent to place seats that are not positioned toward the field of play in areas that are not prone to have balls falling from the air. Of note, the case is going to be appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court where it will be determined if the “baseball rule” will be good law in New Mexico.

Gallup, New Mexico is targeting distracted drivers in hopes of curbing accidents. While it has become common for municipalities to ban cell phone use while driving. Gallup city officials are taking it one step further by targeting not only drivers on cell phones, but also those who apply makeup, eat, or anything else that distracts from driving.

Aware that such a new law would take substantial resources to enforce, the approach that seems to make to have the most support is to enforce the law only of the behavior leads to a car accident. I think this law will do little to discourage distracted driving, and instead just add another ticket to distracted drivers. The idea is applaudable, but the execution seems to prove difficult.

A Kentucky jury recently awarded $2.5 million to the victim of a hate crime beating. The victim, mistakenly believe to be an immigrant was beaten by the Ku Klux Klan. The attack left the boy, now 19, with constant nightmares and nerve damage. Although the attackers also went through the criminal system, the civil trial created a unique opportunity that was the focus of the plaintiff lawyer's goal. To obtain a high enough verdict to bankrupt the organization.

It is amazing that an organization so wrapped in violence and hatred can be brought down by the civil legal system. It is similar to Al Capone being apprehended not in the course of a heinous robbery or crime, but rather for not paying taxes on time.

The ability to connect the organizations and assets to the conduct of its numbers is similar to recognize liability principles that will hold an employer responsible for the negligent conduct of an employee. By personal injury lawyers, this is known as "respondeat superior."

Applying this unique employer/employee theory of liability against organized crime opens the door to other applications. In the right circumstances there may be possible cases against gang violence or other hate crimes.

For the second time this month a Taos accident has resulted in a fatality. Earlier this month, the New Mexico Injury Lawyer Blog featured the tragic story of a Taos motorcycle accident. Sadly, another fatal Taos car accident recently occurred that has taken the life of a two year old toddler. Words cannot express the depth of loss that such an accident causes and certainly no legal outcome, whether civil or criminal will ever be just.

The accident occurred when a Taos hit-and-run driver struck the child and fled the scene. Following the car accident, the child was taken to Holy Cross Hospital where revival efforts were unsuccessful. The vehicle involved was a dark colored, beat up, late 1990's model pickup. Anyone with information can contact the Taos Police Department.

The accident again brings to the forefront the New Mexico personal injury law governing both hit and run and pedestrian accidents. A little known area of New Mexico uninsured motorist coverage would allow for recovery if any of the victim's family members who live in the same household have uninsured motorist coverage. This is true even the the vehicle that is insured has nothing to do with the accident. Again, while no recovery could come anywhere near adequate, this situation highlights the importance of contacted an experienced New Mexico injury and accident lawyer to explore all possible options.

Typically New Mexico work-related injuries can only be pursued under New Mexico workers compensation laws, rather than general civil liability. Essentially, the New Mexico work comp statute traps the claim under work comp law. The distinction is somewhat confusing however, the difference is of great importance.

New Mexico work comp law:

Under the provisions above New Mexico's work comp law, the general requirement for an injured worker to recover money for his or her injury is to simply show that he or she was injured while working. However, rarely can the injured New Mexico worker recover full value for the injuries. Instead, they are only entitled to recover a lesser amount and in some situations are not able to recover for many aspects of their injuries.

New Mexico civil law:

If the injured New Mexico worker can move beyond work comp law, then he or she may be able to recover substantially more money. However, in exchange, the claims are typically more difficult to prove.

So, this begs the question of when can a worker who was hurt in New Mexico move outside of work comp to recover the full value of his or her injury. The answer was clarified in the Delgado opinion in which various requirements were outlined that allowed the injured worker to sue under general civil law. Many of the elements require a showing that the employer knew or should have known that an injury was very likely to occur and did not adequately seeks to protect the employee.

"Delgado claims" as they are now popularly require an intricate and involved the valuation. Fortunately, one of the New Mexico work place injury attorneys at the fine law firm contributed greatly to the writing and research behind the Delgado opinion while he was employed at the New Mexico State Supreme Court.

the ability to escape the "New Mexico work comp trap" may allow the injured worker to recover substantially more than he or she would otherwise.

If you have been hurt on the job while working in New Mexico, contact our New Mexico work injury attorneys to determine whether you have a "Delgado Claim".

KOB news reporter, Joe Vigil, recently covered a remarkable New Mexico drunk driving story about an Albuquerque man who has been arrested 24 times for DWI. At one point, the seasoned drunk driver would encourage his friends to go drive drunk around Albuquerque just to see if they could beat the charges. Despite his lengthy arrest record, 18 of his 24 cases were thrown out of court, and of the remaining six he would generally have to serve just 10 days in jail.

At the close of the story, the man says that he has changed his life and is now clean and sober going on 11 years. He also states that he hopes his story will encourage others to stop drinking and driving.

Yeah, I'm going to have to say that this may not be the best story to tell New Mexico's drunk driving population. I truly don't mean to offend the drunk driver, but I'm going on record as saying this is a bad story share with those thinking of drinking and driving in Albuquerque. I believe it would likely have the opposite effect, suggesting to many that New Mexico drunk driving accidents are not taken seriously, and drunk driving violations are beatable. Worst-case scenario, if you are hit with a drunk driving charge this story would suggest that it is a mere slap on the wrist.

How about instead we focus on the "scared straight" stories, to help with the New Mexico drunk driving epidemic. Lets instead tell stories involving serious punishments for first-time offense, or life-changing mistakes involving New Mexico alcohol-related accidents.

It is certainly wonderful that a hard-core alcoholic can turn his life around, and that is a story worth applauding and being told to many people, however, I suggest leaving out all those details about how easy it is to overcome DWI charges in New Mexico.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals recently wrote an opinion regarding New Mexico uninsured motorist coverage waivers. Prior to the recent opinion, it was understood that unless an insurance company could produce a written waiver by their customer specifically asking to exclude uninsured motorist coverage, they were required to provide it.

Many of our New Mexico car accident clients have benefited from this law when they were involved in accidents in which the negligent driver did not have insurance. Although the client's insurance company would initially attempt to exclude uninsured motorist coverage, when they were unable to produce the necessary documents, they had no choice but to provide such coverage and pay our client's claim.

The recent decision involves a driver who was injured while working for a large company and who sought to stack his employer's uninsured motorist coverage. The insurance company denied the stacking despite not having a signed waiver. The court did an about-face and concluded that the signed waiver is no longer a requirement and instead the waiver must only be made part of the policy.

Although the court expressly limited its opinion to the specific case, it is hard to imagine that the door has not been cracked open for insurance companies to argue a sweeping change.

Most any driver on New Mexico roads has at some point seen the small crosses along the shoulders that designate scenes of serious or fatal New Mexico car accidents. These memorials, or descansos, have been reported to have various effects on people ranging from offensive religious symbols to comforting objects helping people grieve.

Personally, these symbols do not strike me as religious as much as they do somber reminders of serious car accidents that changed people's lives. I oftentimes can't help but slowdown, become a little more cautious, and try to drive safer. It would not matter to me if the symbol was a cross, a Jewish star, a circle or a rectangle. Rather, the effectiveness is the consistent symbol that reminds people of importance of driving safely.

These symbols are being challenged in a Utah court which has caught the attention of New Mexico's Attorney General. The lawsuit was brought by an atheist group concerned with the state's funding of the crosses to designate the deaths of state troopers. New Mexico has filed a brief in the pending appeal to challenge the case.

I can understand the frustration with the state funding religious symbols, however, I sincerely hope that these highway memorials do not disappear as a result of the case. Hopefully the sides will reconcile their differences and allow the symbols of New Mexico accidents to remain standing.

I truly believe, as do many New Mexico car accident lawyers, that cautious driving would greatly reduce New Mexico wrongful death and accident claims. If these reminders scattered throughout New Mexico's highways help in that process, it would be a shame to lose them.

There was a recent Albuquerque car accident on I-25 and Paseo Del Norte. Although this in and of itself is not terribly noteworthy, let alone “blog worthy” for an Albuquerque injury lawyer, the way the accident happened is worth focusing on.

In the early evening an officer observed a motorcycle traveling at a high speed, high being up to 140mph, on the freeway. Not surprisingly the officer began pursuing the moron on the motorcycle. However, when the Albuquerque Police Department officer followed the motorcycle off the interstate, he collided with a pickup truck. Apparently the motorcycle sped away.

Accidents that occur during police chases, or “pursuit cases” as they are referred to by Albuquerque car accident attorneys, require looking at whether the pursuit was following the police departments standard operating procedure.

Generally the SOPs require that the police officer balance the risk posed to the public by continuing the chase, with the harm of letting the subject remain at large. Essentially, if the risk the public is not worth catching the guy, the office should let up.

Each case needs to looked at closely by an experienced New Mexico car accident attorney, and while I would not begin to speculate as to whether the pursuit was justified in this situation, in nonetheless brings to light an important issue.

Of note, victims of New Mexico police pursuit accidents should be aware that to preserve all their rights to pursue their case, action must be taken within 90 days of the incident otherwise their ability to recover may be affected.

In one of the greatest wastes of time for New Mexico courts, the New Mexico Court of Appeals recently had to entertain the request of "Variable" in his attempt to change his name to "F- Censorship." Those familiar with unusual cases will recall that in 2004 "Variable" had his name changed from "Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon" after the New Mexico Court of Appeals granted leave to do so.

Apparently unhappy with his current name, "Variable" was after something a bit more confrontational. I tend to associate "Variable's" desire to change his name with gay marriage. His ability to do so one way or another will have little to no effect on my life. They are both also things that have a hard time justifying extensive state resources to debate the issue. If people want to do it, who the heck am I to stand in their way?

While the First Amendment is nothing to belittle, it is hard to reconcile the difficulties that many Albuquerque personal injury attorneys have in obtaining trial settings while some guy is arguing about his right to change his name to an explicative. I truly wish "Variable" happiness however I hope that his main change ambitions stop eating up New Mexico's judicial resources.

New Mexico bought recently changed when the state Supreme Court gave its decision in Tafoya v. Rael. The case arose when the defendant contractor hired an inexperienced subcontractor to perform dangerous work. When the subcontractor died as a result of his own negligence, he attempted to pursue a case against the general contractor for asking him to do work for which it was not licensed or qualified.

Generally speaking, a general contractor is not responsible for the negligent acts of an independent contractor. The exception to this is negligent hiring in which the general contractor may be liable for injuries caused to a third party. This new case out of New Mexico changed the law to a certain extent in that it allows for a negligent hiring claim against a general contractor when it is the subcontractor that is injured.

Hopefully the decision will encourage employers to exercise greater discretion and involvement in their hiring processes rather than hide behind their independent contractors.

A recognizable problem in cases such as the Tafoya is the need to overcome a substantial amount of comparative fault on behalf of the plaintiff. It would seem that utilizing the recent New Mexico decision on work-related injuries is best reserved for claims involving substantial damages.

Three New Mexico bars, Graham Central Station, Sauce, and The Library, are in danger of losing their licenses as a result of their inability to abide by basic laws and regulations regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages. The violations, according to the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department, arose from the sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor or intoxicated person.

The violations are troubling considering New Mexico's extensive battle with drunk drivers. Although clamping down on such bars will not solve our problem overnight, it does seem that the idea of recognizing the responsibilities associated with alcohol needs to be highlighted. Considering that it is the third strike for each of the bars, they risk the possibility of having their liquor license suspended or revoked.

Personally, I believe that if the bar stands to profit from the sale of alcoholic beverages, it is their job to ensure that they do so responsibly. Just as attorneys are not permitted to practice law with reckless abandon, so too should a bar recognize that they possess a unique responsibility by virtue of selling alcohol. Not to mention, being allowed three strikes is far more lenient than many other businesses are permitted.

New Mexico workers are hurt on the job every day. Many times they immediately contact a New Mexico work comp lawyer to evaluate their case. Although this is not a bad strategy, it may result in not thoroughly exploring all recovery options available under New Mexico law.

After the Work Comp Act was passed, employees injured on the job were largely unable to recover damages beyond those limited by the Workers' Compensation Act. The benefit of moving outside the limits of the act is that generally the amount that can be recovered is closer to fully compensating the injured victim.

Many New Mexico workers who are injured while at work are unaware that if the injury occurred, even in part, because of the conduct of someone other than an employer or co-emplyee, there may be multiple rights they have under New Mexico law. Common examples include when a New Mexico worker is hurt: because of a defective product, in a New Mexico car or truck accident caused by another driver, by a contractor at a job site, or by a third party's negligence.

However, New Mexico employees hurt while working may also have another chance, albeit slim, of recovering damages against their employer outside the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act.

The New Mexico case that opened the door to moving beyond the act, Delgado v Phelps Dodge, established a three prong test that must be applied to all such cases:

(1)the worker or employer engages in an intentional act or omission, without just cause or excuse, that is reasonably expected to result in the injury suffered by the worker;
(2)the worker or employer expects the intentional act or omission to result in the injury, or has utterly disregarded the consequences; and
(3)the intentional act or omission proximately causes the injury.

While many personal injury and New Mexico work related injury lawyers have attempted to use the Delgado opinion to move beyond New Mexico work comp law, the requirements are extensive and the cases that qualify are limited. Nonetheless, in serious New Mexico injury cases, it is often essential for New Mexico accident and injury lawyers to evaluate this option.

Drivers hurt in Albuquerque car, truck, and motorcycle accidents usually find they are the victims of another's negligence. However, sometimes New Mexico injury victims suffer injuries not because of negligence, but rather someone else's intentional act, such as drive by shootings.

An Albuquerque story recently emerged in which an innocent Albuquerque woman was smoking a cigarette outside when she was caught in crossfire from two vehicles shooting at each other. Bernalillo County deputies and other New Mexico officers believe the bullets came from a drive-by shooting.

Although the woman was not seriously injured, others are often not so lucky. Many times injuries from New Mexico drive by shootings are serious if not fatal. When victims or their families call our office to see if anything can be done, the conversation typically focuses on the availability of New Mexico uninsured motorists coverage. The reason is that the shooters rarely have substantial assets and if they do have liability insurance, it almost always excludes intentional acts, such as drive-by shootings. Fortunately, New Mexico uninsured motorist coverage, will typically provide coverage in such situations.

The rules regarding New Mexico uninsured motorist coverage are complex and it is wide to discuss the situation with a New Mexico drive-by shooting and injury lawyer early on to determine how to best proceed. Although drive-by shootings are sudden attacks capable of leaving lasting injury, there may be some form of compensation available for victims and their families.

New Mexico drunk driving is known to be one of worst problems our state faces. All too often we read about horrendous New Mexico drunk driving accidents that destroy families and ruin lives. As a result, various New Mexico drunk driving laws are revisited each legislative session in hopes of tweaking legal formulas to alleviate this cause of many serious and fatal New Mexico accidents. Last year, Albuquerque itself attempted to implement laws to address this issue by banning the sale of alcoholic miniatures in certain parts of the city. The logic was that these “minis” are drank almost immediately after purchase and thereby contribute to New Mexico drunk driving.
To test this theory, simply ask yourself , when have you ever gone to a friends house, been offered a drink, and served a miniature bottle of whatever. As a matter of fact, aside from an airplane ride hear and there, I have never even seen a miniature bottle other than for sale throughout Albuquerque's street corners.
Albuquerque's experiment was short lived when a judge recently overturned the law on the grounds that it infringed on the state's domain. Regardless of the legal justification of the decision, hopefully the matter will be addressed next legislative session and a rational, logical, step toward bettering our state will not stall behind lobbyists and special interests.
Perhaps somewhere out there, there is a solitary person worried that they will no longer be able to stock their liquor cabinet with dozens of teeny bottles, but that is hardly a reason to allow New Mexico's drunk driving problem to go un-targeted by lawmakers.

I recently got of the phone with a woman who was the victim of a serious Albuquerque car accident. Despite a solid injury case, I had to tell her she had no claim. It was unfortunately a common call to our personal injury law firm from accident victims asking about New Mexico Statutes of Limitations. Sadly, with many of these calls, people have the dates wrong. New Mexico medical malpractice, truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, tort claims, and uninsured motorist claims may have different statutes of limitation. Factors such as a plaintiffs age and mental ability or the type of defendant may drastically affect the amount of time to file a New Mexico case.
All too often our New Mexico accident and injury lawyers have to tell seriously injured accident victims that they are out of time to pursue their case. It is never a pleasant call, and one we wish we could avoid.
Generally, New Mexico personal injury and accident claims are governed by a three year statute of limitations. However, various facts unique to each injury claim may result in a statute of only two years. Even worse, some cases require actions within days of the injury to preserve the claim. New Mexico personal injury attorneys and injury victims should be especially careful of cases involving medical malpractice or any government entity.
The moral, even if you don't plan on hiring a New Mexico injury lawyer immediately, it is worth consulting with one regarding the intricacies of you cases. Just as we don't enjoy telling people it is too late, it must be far worse to hear that on the other end of the phone.