This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Three young women drowned at Elephant Butte Reservoir while wading in shallow water when one of them stepped off a steep ledge. Their estates and some witnesses sued the Parks and Recreation Division of New Mexico, alleging negligence for failing to post warning signs about the dangers of swimming or the sudden drop-off in the reservoir (para 2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Sierra County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Parks and Recreation Division, holding that the Division was entitled to governmental immunity under Section 41-4-6 of the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The court rejected the Division's argument that the claims were untimely under Section 41-4-16 (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees: Argued that the Parks and Recreation Division was negligent in failing to post warning signs about the dangers of the reservoir and that immunity was waived under Section 41-4-6 of the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (para 2).
- Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant: Contended that the claims were barred by governmental immunity under the "Works Provision" of Section 41-4-6 and that the claims were untimely under Section 41-4-16 (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Parks and Recreation Division was immune from liability under the "Works Provision" of Section 41-4-6 of the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.
- Whether the failure to post warning signs constituted negligence in the operation or maintenance of the reservoir or the park (paras 2-3).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Parks and Recreation Division, holding that the Division was immune from liability under the "Works Provision" of Section 41-4-6 (para 16).
Reasons
Per Harris L. Hartz J. (Benny E. Flores J. concurring):
The court held that the "Works Provision" of Section 41-4-6 preserves immunity for works used for the diversion or storage of water, even if such works are also used for recreational purposes. The reservoir qualifies as a "works" under the statute, as it is used to store water for irrigation and treaty obligations, in addition to recreation (paras 3-8).
The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the negligence alleged—failure to post warning signs—pertained to the operation or maintenance of the park rather than the reservoir. It reasoned that providing warning signs about dangers in the reservoir is part of the operation and maintenance of the reservoir, which is immunized under the "Works Provision" (paras 10-12).
The court declined to address the dissent's argument that the state was not responsible for the operation or maintenance of the reservoir, as this issue was not raised by the parties and lacked a factual record (paras 13-15).
Dissenting: Michael D. Bustamante J.
Judge Bustamante dissented, arguing that the state should not be immune for activities it has not undertaken. He contended that the federal government retained responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the reservoir as a "works," while the state was responsible only for recreational facilities. Thus, the state's immunity should not extend to the reservoir under the "Works Provision" (paras 18-20).
He also expressed concern that the majority's approach departed from traditional tort principles, which base liability on acts or omissions rather than status. He suggested that the case should have been analyzed based on the state's actual responsibilities under the lease agreement (paras 19-20).