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.

A lawsuit was brought on behalf of the estate of the deceased person and the representative of the estate, seeking damages for the wrongful death based on liability for negligence and premises liability. The lawsuit was brought in state court and removed by the defendants to federal court. The woman who had asked her neighbor to go check on the house after the alarm went off was among the defendants, and she moved to dismiss the claims asserted against her. The court rejected her argument that her homeowner’s duty of care ought to be limited in this case for policy reasons. The court agreed with her, however, that there was a failure to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that her acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the accident. The court reasoned that it was the deputy’s inattentive driving that resulted in the deceased person being struck and killed. The court further reasoned that assuming that the defendant had a duty to keep the premises safe, which had been breached by the request to check in on the dogs, the plaintiffs still had not alleged and could not allege facts showing that the breach was reasonably connected as a significant link to the injury. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims against the homeowner.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. Sometimes multiple parties are liable for payment of damages resulting from an accident. An award of monetary damages can assist people who are injured and their families with the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. To understand more about a premises liability case and how it can be pursued in a manner that maximizes your recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

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.

Under section 1446(c)(2) of title 28 of the U.S. Code, which concerns removal of lawsuits to federal court based on diversity of citizenship, the burden of proof is on the party seeking to remove an action from state court to federal court to show that there is federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The defendant in this case needed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, a complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and defendant. This was not an issue because the plaintiff was a California citizen and the defendant was a citizen of New Mexico.

The defendant also needed to show that the amount in controversy was in excess of $75,000. The court concluded that the defendant had established that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Basically the court held the plaintiff to the estimated damages he had presented to the defendant to try to settle the case before bringing a lawsuit. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that only compensatory damages should be considered, and that exemplary damages should not be considered. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand, concluding that the plaintiff was trying to avoid federal court jurisdiction by taking the position the amount in controversy was $20,000, which was less than the $37,659 estimate of the low end of damages presented in the demand that the plaintiff made before filing his lawsuit.

If you or a loved one has sustained personal injuries, there may be grounds for a recovery of monetary damages from parties who are responsible. In some situations, punitive damages can be collected in addition to compensatory damages. Collecting damages can help people who have suffered personal injuries and their loved ones pay out-of-pocket costs including medical expenses, and compensate people monetarily for lost wages and pain and suffering. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued in a manner that maximizes your recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

The summit on autonomous vehicles followed a fatal car accident in Tempe, Arizona. Tragically, a woman was struck and killed in Tempe while she was crossing the street. She was hit by another woman who was behind the wheel of a self-driving Uber. Tempe police had stated that the car did not slow down before striking the pedestrian, which has since been confirmed by review of video footage of the accident. The Uber accident in Tempe is alarming because either the pedestrian who was struck was not recognized by the car’s autonomous system as a pedestrian, or, if she was, something went wrong applying the brakes. The National Transportation Safety Board and the National Highway Safety Administration investigated the accident to try to figure out what happened.

Among the technological innovations discussed at the summit on autonomous vehicles organized by the Department of Transportation were the five levels of automation. Level 1 vehicles have automatic braking and cruise control. Level 2 vehicles assist with steering and acceleration. At Level 3, conditional automation, a driver is still needed and is expected to jump in and take over under certain circumstances. At Level 4, a vehicle can drive itself under some conditions, without input from a driver. At Level 5, a vehicle can drive itself under all conditions and may not include the option to let a driver take over.

The Las Cruces Sun News coverage of the summit includes some timely and thought-provoking questions. Among them are: (1) Who would pay for a serious injury or death when an autonomous vehicle hits a pedestrian? and (2) How would liability for crashes between two autonomous vehicles differ from under the current law?

Perhaps claims would be asserted against the manufacturers of vehicles instead of the vehicles’ owners’ auto insurance. Whether the number of crashes would increase or decrease is unknown. Some statistics suggest that 94 percent of crashes are due to human error or poor judgment. Thus, giving drivers less control may lead to fewer accidents. That is the hope.

If you or a loved one was injured in an accident, there may be grounds for an award of damages. In some cases, punitive damages are available in addition to compensatory damages. An award of monetary damages can assist people who are injured and their families with the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. To understand more about your case, call New Mexico car accident lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

New Mexico Court Rules Law Capping Damages Recoverable for Medical Malpractice is Unconstitutional

Plaintiffs to Proceed with Personal Injury Lawsuit in Federal Court Following Ruling by U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico

New Mexico Property Owners Have Duty to Those Invited Onto Property, Including for Open and Obvious Dangers

In a recent ruling, the United States District Court denied for the most part a motion for summary judgment brought by a driver of a semi-tractor trailer and his employer, the defendants in a personal injury lawsuit. The court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion with respect to the plaintiff’s punitive damages claim, and it denied summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s New Mexico state law claims, including negligence, negligence per se, and negligent training and supervision.

The underlying accident occurred on Interstate I-40 at around 3:00 in the morning, after the individual defendant had taken over driving responsibilities from his brother.

As the defendant approached Gallup, New Mexico, after stopping for a 30-minute mandatory Department of Transportation break, it was sleeting. He testified that weather conditions were “sub-optimal” and that as he was driving westbound on I-40, he felt an impact but, believing he had struck a deer, continued to drive. He further testified that he pulled over, assessed the damage to the tractor-trailer he had been driving, and returned to the location he believed was the location of the impact to determine whether there was anything in the road. Finding nothing, he continued driving westbound on I-40.

A witness driving westbound on I-40 at around the same time saw a male, who would later be identified as the plaintiff, walking backwards on the roadway as though he were hitchhiking. The witness, who was operating a commercial vehicle when he saw this, contacted authorities and reported seeing the pedestrian and what the pedestrian was wearing. An officer with the Gallup Police Department was dispatched, saw a shoe in the middle of the roadway, and found the plaintiff lying face down in a muddy roadside area. An officer from the Holbrook, Arizona Police Department was dispatched in response to an attempt to locate the vehicle the individual defendant was driving. The officer stopped the vehicle. A detective from the Gallup Police Department then interviewed the defendant in Holbrook. The plaintiff does not recall any of the events leading up to or immediately following the alleged collision.

Against this factual background, which was stipulated by the parties for the purposes of the adjudication of the summary judgment motion, the court declined to dismiss most of the plaintiff’s claims. The court left it to a jury to decide negligence, concluding that a jury should decide whether the individual defendant had breached his duty of care owed to the plaintiff and/or proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The court also denied summary judgment with respect to the claims of negligence per se, which were based on alleged violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and implementing regulations. The court further denied summary judgment with respect to the claims against the corporate defendant that employed the individual defendant who had been driving on the night of the accident. These claims, for negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention, and entrustment, were also to be determined by a jury, according to the court’s ruling.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to punitive damages claimed by the plaintiff. The court explained that:

Under New Mexico law, negligent conduct alone is insufficient to support a finding of punitive damages. Instead, “[t]o be liable for punitive damages, a wrongdoer must have some culpable mental state, and the wrongdoer’s conduct must rise to a willful, wanton, malicious reckless, oppressive, or fraudulent level[.]”

The court determined that the plaintiff had not met his burden on summary judgment to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact for trial regarding the individual defendant’s culpable mental state that would support a punitive damages claim.

If you or a loved one was injured in an accident, there may be grounds for an award of damages. In some cases, punitive damages are available in addition to compensatory damages. An award of monetary damages can assist people who are injured and their families with the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. To understand more about your case, call New Mexico truck accident lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

Legal Element of Causation Must be Proven in New Mexico Lawsuits Alleging Negligence

Bifurcation Not Mandated in Lawsuit by Insured Plaintiff against her Insurance Company Following Car Accident, According to New Mexico Court

Property owners and others in New Mexico are obligated to ensure that the premises under their control are safe and do not pose hazards to visitors. Premises liability can be triggered when there are New Mexico slip and fall accidents within and outside commercial properties, including but not limited to stores, restaurants, and hotels, and residential properties, such as houses and apartment buildings.

To help minimize the occurrence of injurious accidents that can result from hazardous outdoor conditions, New Mexico law has provisions in place imposing obligations on property owners at the municipal level.

For example, Article 8 of Chapter 9 of the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances includes a section stating:

“It shall be the duty and responsibility of all owners of property, whether vacant or inhabited abutting any sidewalks or drivepads, if they are part of the sidewalk to keep same free and clear of all snow and ice, provided however, that such snow and ice shall not be placed in the gutter or street.”

People found to have violated this ordinance can be deemed guilty of having committed a petty misdemeanor and subjected to penalties, including a minimum fine of $150 for a first-time violation. Subsequent violations can subject people to a minimum fine of $300, with a $500 fine for each violation thereafter. Albuquerque can also impose community service in addition to or instead of fines.

While there is a legal obligation on property owners to keep certain areas free and clear of snow and ice, cities, towns, and other entities with enforcement powers do not always enforce safety-related laws to the full extent appropriate. Enforcement priorities do not preclude a recovery of damages for injured parties under legal doctrines such as negligence when there is a failure to keep the area where an injury occurred free of snow and ice and otherwise safe.

If you or a loved one was injured while on property belonging to another party, there may be grounds for a recovery from the owner or manager of the property or insurance companies based on premises liability. People who are injured on premises owned by others may be entitled to an award of financial compensation, including in some cases punitive damages. An award of monetary damages can assist injured people and their families with the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. To understand more about your case, call New Mexico premises liability lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

Albuquerque Passes New City Ordinance to Increase Pedestrian, Cyclist, and Driver Safety

New Mexico Property Owners Have Duty to Those Invited Onto Property, Including for Open and Obvious Dangers

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Claim for Loss of Consortium Damages Brought by Minor Children on Behalf of Fatally Injured Father