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, standing on a second-story balcony of her apartment, briefly left her three-year-old son unattended. The child fell through an 8.75-inch gap in the balcony guardrail, suffering a fractured skull and alleged post-traumatic epilepsy. The guardrail spacing complied with the 1979 Uniform Building Code (UBC) in effect at the time of the building's construction but did not meet the updated 1997 UBC standard of four inches (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Trial Court: Directed a verdict against the Plaintiff on her negligence per se claim, finding the UBC lacked specificity to support such an instruction. The jury found the Defendant not negligent under common law negligence (para 3).
- Court of Appeals: Affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the UBC provisions did not establish a sufficiently specific standard to warrant a negligence per se instruction (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that the UBC provisions, particularly the four-inch guardrail spacing requirement, imposed a duty to retrofit older structures to meet updated safety standards. Claimed the Defendant's failure to comply with this duty constituted negligence per se (paras 6, 10-13).
- Defendant: Contended that the UBC did not impose a retrofitting obligation for guardrail spacing and that the building complied with the UBC edition in effect at the time of construction. Asserted that the common law standard of ordinary care governed the case (paras 3, 12, 19).
Legal Issues
- Whether the UBC provisions established a sufficiently specific standard of care to support a negligence per se instruction (para 7).
- Whether the Defendant had a duty to retrofit the guardrail spacing to comply with updated UBC standards (para 10).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the UBC provisions did not support a negligence per se instruction (para 24).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Chávez CJ., Serna, Maes JJ., and Ransom J. (Pro-Tem) concurring):
The Court applied a four-part test for negligence per se, focusing on whether the UBC provisions defined a specific standard of conduct. It held that the UBC provisions lacked the requisite specificity to impose a retrofitting obligation for guardrail spacing. The "dangerous to life" language in the UBC was deemed too broad and akin to the common law standard of ordinary care, requiring jury evaluation of reasonableness rather than mandating specific conduct (paras 7-19).
The Court clarified that negligence per se requires a statute or regulation to set forth a specific standard of care, distinct from the common law. It adopted the analysis in Abeita v. Northern Rio Arriba Electric Cooperative, rejecting prior inconsistent case law. The Court also noted that the UBC's "grandfather clause" allowed compliance with the code edition in effect at the time of construction, further negating any retrofitting duty (paras 20-23).
The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that unrelated UBC provisions could be read together to create a retrofitting obligation. It emphasized that statutory construction must demonstrate a clear legislative intent to impose such a duty, which was absent here (paras 15-17).