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

The Plaintiff, an employee of the New Mexico Veterans Service Agency, fell on a slippery walkway outside her workplace, which was located in a building owned and controlled by the Defendant, the Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County. The walkway became slick when wet, and the Plaintiff fell while testing its safety for a handicapped client after a rainstorm (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court: The court instructed the jury that the Plaintiff was a licensee, not a business visitor, and refused to provide jury instructions on circumstantial evidence. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant (paras 3, 16).
• Court of Appeals: Certified the question of whether the duty owed to a public invitee is the same as that owed to a business visitor to the Supreme Court of New Mexico (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that she was a business visitor and that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury accordingly. She also contended that the court improperly denied a circumstantial evidence instruction (paras 3-4, 16).
• Defendant-Appellee: Maintained that the Plaintiff was a licensee and that the jury instructions were appropriate. The Defendant also argued that no circumstantial evidence was presented to warrant such an instruction (paras 3-4, 16).

Legal Issues

• Was the Plaintiff a business visitor or a licensee, and did the district court err in its jury instructions regarding her status?
• Should the distinctions between licensees and invitees be eliminated in favor of a single standard of reasonable care?
• Did the district court err in refusing to provide a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial (para 13).

Reasons

Per Baca J. (Montgomery C.J. and Ransom J. concurring):

• The Court determined that the Plaintiff was a business visitor, not a licensee, as she was on the premises in connection with her employment, which indirectly benefited the Defendant as the property owner (paras 6-7).
• The Court eliminated the common-law distinctions between licensees and invitees, adopting a single standard of reasonable care for all lawful entrants, except trespassers. This change aligns with modern negligence principles and simplifies the law (paras 7-12).
• The district court's jury instructions were flawed because they labeled the Plaintiff as a licensee and conflicted with the ordinary care instructions provided. This error necessitated a new trial (para 13).
• Regarding the circumstantial evidence instruction, the Court noted that circumstantial evidence appeared to have been presented but could not conclusively determine error due to the absence of a trial transcript. The Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of providing a sufficient record for review, and this issue was deemed waived (paras 14-16).