AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

A patron of the A-Mi-Gusto Lounge was fatally shot by another intoxicated patron after an escalating argument. The bar had a history of violent incidents, yet the owners failed to provide adequate security measures. The victim had expressed concerns about the assailant's violent tendencies and possession of a firearm to a bar employee shortly before the shooting (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Trial Court: Held the bar owners liable for the entire damages, finding they breached their duty to provide adequate security and protect patrons from foreseeable harm. The court alternatively found the bar owners one-third at fault and the assailant two-thirds at fault if comparative negligence principles applied (para 4).
• Reichert v. Atler, 117 N.M. 628, 875 P.2d 384 (Ct. App. 1992): Reversed the trial court, holding that the bar owners' negligence should be compared to the assailant's conduct under comparative negligence principles, and the owners should only be liable for their proportionate fault (headnotes, para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the bar owners breached their duty to provide adequate security and protect patrons from foreseeable harm, making them fully liable for the wrongful death (para 4).
• Defendants: Contended that their negligence should be compared to the assailant's intentional conduct under comparative negligence principles, limiting their liability to their proportionate fault (para 1).
• Amicus Curiae (New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association): Supported the application of comparative negligence principles to apportion fault between the bar owners and the assailant.

Legal Issues

• Should the negligence of a business owner in failing to protect patrons from foreseeable harm be compared to the intentional conduct of a third party under comparative negligence principles?
• Should the business owner be held jointly and severally liable for the damages or only for their proportionate fault?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the bar owners' negligence should be compared to the assailant's conduct and that the owners are liable only for their proportionate fault (para 12).

Reasons

Per Ransom J. (Montgomery C.J., Baca, Franchini, and Frost JJ. concurring):

• The Court reaffirmed the duty of business owners to protect patrons from foreseeable harm, regardless of whether the harm results from intentional or negligent conduct (paras 5, 11).
• Comparative negligence principles apply unless inconsistent with public policy. The Court found no public policy basis to exempt the bar owners from apportionment of fault, emphasizing that each tortfeasor should be responsible only for their percentage of harm (paras 8-9).
• The Court rejected the argument that applying comparative negligence would dilute the bar owners' duty, suggesting a jury instruction to clarify the heightened duty of care required as the risk of harm increases (para 10).
• The Court distinguished this case from others where comparative negligence was not applied, noting that the injured party here sought to hold a negligent tortfeasor accountable for the conduct of an intentional actor, not vice versa (paras 7-9).
• The Court concluded that the bar owners' negligence should be compared to the assailant's intentional conduct, and the owners are liable only for their proportionate fault (para 11).