This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff tripped and fell over a water meter in an alley while taking out trash at her mother’s store in Gallup, New Mexico, resulting in a fractured ankle. The Plaintiff alleged that the City of Gallup failed to maintain the alley in a safe condition, leading to her injury (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Trial Court: The jury returned a special verdict in favor of the City of Gallup, finding no negligence. The Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was not ruled upon (paras 1, 6).
- Court of Appeals: Affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the Plaintiff failed to show prejudice regarding jury selection, defense counsel’s closing arguments, and the refusal to give a requested jury instruction (paras 1, 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that the trial court erred by (1) refusing to give the basic slip-and-fall jury instruction (UJI 13-1318), (2) allowing an unequal number of peremptory challenges during jury selection, and (3) permitting improper and prejudicial statements by defense counsel during closing arguments (para 1).
- Defendant: Contended that the trial court’s actions did not prejudice the Plaintiff, the jury instructions given were sufficient, and the statements made during closing arguments were within permissible bounds (paras 7, 13-14).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court err in refusing to give the Plaintiff’s requested slip-and-fall jury instruction (UJI 13-1318)?
- Was the Plaintiff prejudiced by the trial court’s handling of jury selection, including the unequal number of peremptory challenges?
- Did the defense counsel’s statements during closing arguments improperly prejudice the Plaintiff’s right to a fair trial?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals on the issue of the jury instruction and remanded the case for a new trial (para 26).
- The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ rulings on jury selection and defense counsel’s closing arguments, finding no prejudice to the Plaintiff (para 26).
Reasons
Per Maes J. (Chávez C.J., Serna, and Bosson JJ. concurring):
Jury Instruction: The trial court erred in refusing to give the Plaintiff’s requested slip-and-fall instruction (UJI 13-1318). This instruction was necessary to fully and accurately state the City’s duty, including that it applies regardless of whether the hazard was obvious or known to the City. The refusal deprived the Plaintiff of a critical part of her theory of the case, causing prejudice (paras 19-25).
Jury Selection: The Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the trial court’s handling of jury selection. The Plaintiff did not exhaust her peremptory challenges, did not specify which juror she would have challenged, and did not show that the empaneled jury was partial. However, trial courts are instructed to allow retroactive use of peremptory challenges if a for-cause ruling is reversed during jury selection (paras 8-13).
Closing Arguments: While defense counsel’s statements regarding industry standards were improper as they were not based on evidence, the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that these statements caused an improper judgment. The trial court’s curative actions regarding a misstatement of law during closing arguments were sufficient to address any potential prejudice (paras 14-18).
Per Bosson J., dissenting in part (Minzner J. concurring):
- Agreed that the trial court should have given the requested jury instruction but dissented on the decision to remand for a new trial. Justice Bosson argued that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice from the lack of the instruction, as the City’s defense focused on disputing the cause of the injury rather than relying on the obviousness or notice of the hazard. Thus, the trial error did not affect the outcome (paras 28-30).