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 visited a K-Mart store in Carlsbad, New Mexico, on December 26, 1991, intending to shop. While attempting to dislodge a shopping basket, the Plaintiff slipped, fell, and hit her head, resulting in injuries that required a seven-day hospitalization. The Plaintiff alleged that a wet floor caused her fall and that K-Mart knew or should have known about the hazardous condition (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, December 9, 1994: The Plaintiff filed a negligence suit against K-Mart, alleging failure to maintain safe premises. The jury returned a verdict in favor of K-Mart, and the district court entered judgment accordingly. The Plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial was denied (paras 3-4).
- Court of Appeals: The appeal was certified to the Supreme Court of New Mexico as a matter of substantial public interest (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred by modifying the uniform jury instruction (UJI) on premises liability. The Plaintiff contended that the inclusion of the phrase "the owner of the premises is not the insurer of the safety of visitors" confused the jury and improperly introduced outdated notions of contributory negligence (paras 4, 9).
- Defendant-Appellee: Defended the trial court's jury instruction, asserting that it accurately reflected New Mexico law and did not prejudice the Plaintiff's case. The Defendant argued that the instruction clarified that negligence, not strict liability, applied (paras 7, 10).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court err in modifying the uniform jury instruction on premises liability by including the phrase "the owner of the premises is not the insurer of the safety of visitors"? (paras 4, 9).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the jury's verdict and the judgment in favor of K-Mart (para 12).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Franchini C.J., Baca, Serna, and McKinnon JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the trial court did not err in its modification of the uniform jury instruction. While the amended version of UJI 13-1318 applied to cases filed after March 1, 1996, the Plaintiff's case, filed in 1994, was governed by the former version. However, the former version did not fully align with New Mexico law as established in Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp., which rejected the notion that premises owners could avoid liability for open and obvious dangers (paras 6-8).
The trial court appropriately reconciled the former UJI with Klopp by including language addressing obvious dangers. The phrase "the owner of the premises is not the insurer of the safety of visitors" was deemed an accurate statement of New Mexico law, clarifying that negligence, not strict liability, applied. The Court found no evidence that the phrase confused the jury or unduly emphasized one party's theory. While the phrase might have been unnecessary, its inclusion did not constitute reversible error (paras 9-11).
The Court concluded that the jury instructions, taken as a whole, fairly presented the issues and applicable law, and the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the instruction (paras 10-12).