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 Plaintiffs, acting individually and as representatives of their deceased son’s estate, sued the Defendant, a homeowner, for the wrongful death of their son. The Defendant had left his home under the care of a house-sitter, who was instructed to follow general rules, including not allowing others to handle the Defendant’s guns. During the Defendant’s absence, the house-sitter’s brother brought a loaded firearm to the house, which was used in a game of "quick draw" that resulted in the Plaintiffs' son being fatally shot (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Trial Court: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, finding no genuine issue of material fact and no principal-agent relationship between the Defendant and the house-sitter (para 1).
- Madsen v. Scott, 1998-NMCA-92, 125 N.M. 475, 963 P.2d 552: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the employment relationship, scope of employment, and foreseeability of the accident (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs: Argued that the house-sitter and his brother were acting as the Defendant’s agents or employees, and that the Defendant was vicariously liable for their negligence. They also contended that the Defendant failed to foresee the risk of harm associated with leaving guns in the house (paras 5-6).
- Defendant: Asserted that the house-sitting arrangement did not constitute an employment relationship, that the house-sitter’s actions were outside the scope of any such relationship, and that the accident was unforeseeable as a matter of law (para 6).
Legal Issues
- Was there an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship between the Defendant and the house-sitter?
- Was the house-sitter acting within the scope of any employment or agency relationship at the time of the accident?
- Was the accident foreseeable to the Defendant?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant (para 19).
Reasons
Per Serna J. (Minzner C.J., Baca, Franchini, and Maes JJ. concurring):
Employment Relationship: The Court found no employer-employee or principal-agent relationship between the Defendant and the house-sitter. The house-sitting arrangement involved general instructions, no compensation, and no contract, and did not give the Defendant control over the house-sitter’s conduct. House-sitting is not typically considered an occupation or business requiring specific skills (paras 8-15).
Scope of Employment: Since no employment relationship existed, the Court did not address whether the house-sitter was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident (para 15).
Foreseeability: The Court held that the accident was not foreseeable. The Defendant had taken reasonable steps to ensure safety by unloading his guns and removing ammunition from the house. The actions of the house-sitter’s brother in bringing a loaded firearm and engaging in a game of "quick draw" were not reasonably foreseeable to the Defendant (paras 16-18).
Policy Considerations: The Court emphasized that holding homeowners liable in such circumstances would impose an unreasonable burden, requiring them to anticipate every possible risk when leaving their homes in the care of others (para 18).