Articles Posted in Relevant Personal Injury Case Law

Being involved in a New Mexico car accident is a stressful experience, both physically and emotionally. In the immediate wake of the accident, the focus is on physically recovering from the injuries of the accident. Once the physical wounds heal, there is often the emotional stress that accompanies missing time at work, constantly visiting a physical therapist, and getting back behind the wheel of a car. This can take time.

Front-End DamageOnce both body and mind have recovered, there is the issue of the financial toll that the accident took on the victim. In some cases, insurance will help cover these costs. However, insurance companies will not approve all claims, and they may deny an accident victim’s claim for any number of reasons. In these cases, a New Mexico car crash attorney can assist accident victims with the preparation of their case. A recent case illustrates one insurance company’s efforts to evade responsibility.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in the case was involved in an accident with another motorist. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the other driver, that driver’s insurance company, and the plaintiff’s own insurance company. The insurance companies were named as defendants because they were contractually obligated to cover the costs associated with the accident, pursuant to the drivers’ insurance policies.

Continue reading

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Connecticut issued a written opinion that will be of interest to victims of New Mexico slip-and-fall accidents because it illustrates the type of evidence necessary to establish liability in these types of cases. In this case, the plaintiff’s case was tried before a judge without a jury. After hearing the evidence on both sides, the judge entered a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor for approximately $108,000. The defendant appealed the lower court’s ruling to a higher court.

SidewalkThe Plaintiff Stubs Her Toe on a Hospital Sidewalk

The plaintiff was at the defendant hospital visiting a loved one when she stubbed her toe and fell while walking on the sidewalk immediately outside the hospital. In her deposition testimony, the plaintiff explained that she did not know what caused her to trip at the time, only that the front of her toe slammed into something on the ground and that she subsequently fell. As a result of her fall, the plaintiff sustained a broken toe and other injuries.

The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant hospital, claiming that the hospital was negligent in maintaining the walkway. The plaintiff presented two reports from witnesses, explaining that there was a small but visible divot in the pavement in the immediate area where she fell.

Continue reading

After a judge or jury enters a verdict in a New Mexico personal injury case, that verdict is final unless one of the parties files an appeal to a higher court. If an appeal is filed, the appellate court may only consider alleged legal errors. This means that an appellate court will not revisit factual findings of the judge or jury below, but it may consider issues related to the admission of evidence or other legal rulings made during the course of the trial.

Diving BoardAppellate courts will also only consider arguments that were made during the trial. For example, if a party fails to object to a ruling with which they disagree, that party will be prevented from raising the issue on appeal in most cases. In a recent case, the plaintiff’s premises liability claim was dismissed on appeal because the arguments he made on appeal were not raised below.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was an investor looking to purchase a rental home. He contacted the defendant real estate agent and arranged to see one of the agent’s listings. The agent met the plaintiff at the home and showed the plaintiff around. The home had a pool in the back yard that had been emptied prior to the property being put up for sale.

Continue reading

New Mexico drunk driving accidents are too common, claiming upwards of 100 lives per year. To combat the threat drunk driving poses, lawmakers have enacted strict drunk driving laws that prevent drivers from getting behind the wheel when they have had too much to drink. Additionally, in some cases, New Mexico imposes liability on bars and restaurants that over-serve customers who go on to cause serious accidents through the state’s Dram Shop statute.

sunset

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Florida issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving an allegedly drunk driver who caused an accident after drinking several alcoholic drinks during a round of golf. The question the court had to answer was whether the golf course could be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, based on the state’s Dram Shop statute. While the New Mexico Dram Shop statute differs from Florida’s in several ways, the basic concepts are similar.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff’s wife was killed when she was struck by an allegedly drunk driver. The driver was on his way home after a round of golf at the defendant golf course. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the golf course, claiming that it should be held responsible for his wife’s death because employees of the golf course over-served the driver to the point of intoxication.

Continue reading

Whenever a doctor performs a surgery or procedure, the doctor is supposed to explain all of the risks associated with the procedure to the patient. This entails explaining to the patient what exactly will be done during the procedure, what the expected outcome of the procedure is, and what the likelihood of encountering a complication is.

Operating RoomIf a doctor fails to properly inform a client about the risks of a procedure, and the patient is injured during the surgery, the patient may be able to file a New Mexico medical malpractice case seeking compensation for their injuries. This may be the case even if the doctor was not negligent in performing the surgery. A recent opinion issued by an Oklahoma appellate court held that in order to obtain truly informed consent, a doctor should also advise the patient of any non-doctor assistants who will be helping with the procedure.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a patient of the defendant doctor. At some point in the course of treating the plaintiff, the defendant doctor suggested the plaintiff undergo a specific surgery. The plaintiff agreed, and the defendant doctor had the plaintiff sign a general release waiver giving permission for the defendant and “whomever he/she (they) may designate as his/her assistants, to perform” the procedure. However, the space provided for the doctor to provide the names and credentials of any assistants who would be involved in the procedure was left blank.

Continue reading

As if being involved in a car accident is not bad enough, sometimes New Mexico car accident victims encounter significant trouble when they try to seek compensation for their injuries. In many cases, these troubles are due to the involvement of insurance companies. While insurance companies are ultimately the source for most car accident victims’ compensation, these companies are operated on a for-profit motive and are financially incentivized to settle claims for as little as possible.

Car AccidentInsurance companies know that the post-accident recovery period is a difficult time for accident victims. In some cases, insurance companies take advantage of this vulnerability by offering to settle a claim for far less than the costs that the accident victim actually incurred. In other cases, insurance companies will deny claims altogether, requiring the victim to file a personal injury lawsuit. This is what happened in a recent case involving a car accident caused by an underinsured motorist.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the passenger in a car being driven by a friend. The two were heading to the grocery store. When they pulled into the parking lot, the plaintiff and her friend began talking in the car. Before they finished their conversation, they heard a loud bang. As the plaintiff looked over, she saw that two vehicles had gotten into an accident. She exited the vehicle and approached to provide assistance.

Continue reading

New Mexico is a beautiful state with huge amounts of open land that can be used for recreational purposes, whether it be hiking, biking, swimming, fishing, or hunting. To encourage landowners, including local governments, to open up their land to the public, New Mexico lawmakers have passed a recreational-use statute that provides immunity from liability for some accidents that occur on a party’s land.

FireworksNot all landowners are immune from liability, however. After an accident occurs, the burden is on the landowner to prove that they are entitled to recreational-use immunity. In order to qualify, the landowner must establish that they did not receive any compensation from the person who was injured on their land. Even then, there are several exceptions that apply. A recent case illustrates how another state court handled a slip-and-fall plaintiff’s claim against a city for an injury that occurred in a public park.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff planned on watching the 4th of July firework display at a park that was owned and operated by the defendant city. The plaintiff arrived at the park in the morning, and upon exiting her car, she made her way past a set of vertical poles used to establish the bounds of the parking area. The plaintiff later explained that she didn’t pay much attention to the poles as she walked by them, and even if she had looked at them, they would not have caught her attention.

Continue reading

In a recent case, a state supreme court recently considered whether a student could sue the school district after she fell from a zip line at her elementary school playground. A nine-year-old girl and her parents filed a tort claim against the school district after the girl fell while using a zip line at the playground, fracturing her wrist and forearm.

Zip-LineThe school claimed it was immune from liability under the state’s Governmental Immunity Act. Under the Act, public entities such as a school district are generally immune from lawsuits unless the claim falls under one of the exceptions. The parents argued that one exception did apply:  the recreation-area waiver. The waiver provides that a public entity can be held liable for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition of a public facility located in a park or recreation area maintained by a public entity.

The court first determined that the playground, which was part of the school, qualified as a public facility under the waiver. However, the court held that a piece of playground equipment that was not negligently constructed or maintained could not be a dangerous condition under the waiver.

Continue reading

In a recent case, one court considered whether a city could be held liable after a child was hit by a stray golf ball while he was on city-owned property. The golf course was owned by the city and managed by a private company. Next to the golf course, there were recreational areas, including a pedestrian walkway. The young plaintiff was struck in the head by a golf ball as his mother was pushing him in a stroller on the walkway.

GolferThe boy and the mother filed a claim against the city, alleging that the city failed to protect against a dangerous condition on public property by having a golf course next to a public walking area. According to the complaint, the boy was brought to the hospital and diagnosed with a brain injury. He allegedly suffered from cognitive delays, eye injuries, urinary dysfunction, significant pain, and emotional distress. The plaintiffs alleged that the city failed to protect against the known risk of golf balls hitting people outside the golf course by failing to put up adequate fences or other barriers and failing to adequately warn people of the risk.

The city filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming it had immunity under the state’s laws. The trial court agreed and granted the city’s motion, finding it was entitled to immunity under a state statute. The law stated that a public entity is generally liable for an injury caused by a dangerous condition on its property; however, a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the condition of a trail used for access to recreational areas that is not a public street or highway.

Continue reading

Recently, a state supreme court released answers to the certified questions posed by a lower federal court in a car accident case. The question involved the applicability of a comparative negligence defense in a crashworthiness case brought by a man who was injured in a car accident.

Pickup TruckThe case stems from a 2012 accident in which an individual and his friend were driving in a 1987 Chevy pickup truck, owned by the friend. Evidence showed that the driver was under the influence of marijuana when he came to an intersection and failed to stop, ultimately ending up directly in the path of a Ford truck. The truck driver was unable to stop in time and hit the plaintiff’s car, which caused the Chevy to burst into flames. The driver died, and his friend suffered severe injuries.

The passenger in the Chevy filed a crashworthiness lawsuit against the car manufacturer, arguing that the pickup’s design caused the explosion. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that a comparative negligence analysis should be applied, and the plaintiff should be barred from recovery because the driver was impaired when the accident occurred.

Continue reading