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 was seriously injured while driving a recreational vehicle on land owned or controlled by the Defendant. The vehicle collided with an unmarked hazard. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant breached its duty of care to keep the land safe for visitors or, alternatively, failed to warn trespassers of dangerous conditions on the land (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the Plaintiff to amend her complaint. The court certified for interlocutory appeal the question of whether the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Act (OHMVA) confers immunity on governmental entities (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the OHMVA does not extend immunity to governmental entities and urged the court to consider the legislative history, historical context, and interplay between the OHMVA and the Tort Claims Act to determine legislative intent (paras 5, 11).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the plain language of the OHMVA applies to all landowners, including governmental entities, and that the statute provides immunity for the Defendant (paras 4, 13).

Legal Issues

• Does the OHMVA confer immunity on governmental entities for off-highway motor vehicle-related accidents or injuries occurring on their lands?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal of the case and remanded it for further proceedings (para 15).

Reasons

Per Pickard J. (Bustamante and Kennedy JJ. concurring):

• The court rejected the Defendant’s plain meaning interpretation of the OHMVA, finding that the statute’s language is ambiguous and does not clearly extend immunity to governmental entities (paras 4-5).
• The legislative history of the OHMVA, modeled after a statute designed to encourage private landowners to open their lands for public recreational use, indicates that the statute was intended to apply only to private landowners (paras 6-7).
• The historical context of the OHMVA’s enactment, which predates the abolition of sovereign immunity and the passage of the Tort Claims Act, supports the conclusion that the legislature did not intend to grant immunity to public landowners (paras 9-10).
• Extending OHMVA immunity to governmental entities would conflict with the Tort Claims Act, which waives immunity in certain circumstances, and would lead to absurd results, such as reinstating immunity for public parks where no fee is charged (paras 11-13).
• The OHMVA, as a statute in derogation of the common law right to sue, must be narrowly construed. The court concluded that the statute does not confer immunity on public landowners (para 14).