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 fell into a drainage ditch on December 6, 1987, while walking along a road in the Village of Corrales where the road suddenly narrowed. She suffered a bimalleolar fracture, which was later discovered during surgery on December 7, 1987, to be a more severe trimalleolar fracture. The Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages against the Village on December 7, 1989, alleging personal injury due to the incident.

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County: Denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for non-compliance with the statute of limitations.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant (Village of Corrales): Argued that the Plaintiff's complaint was barred by the two-year statute of limitations under NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-15(A), as the injury occurred on December 6, 1987, and the complaint was filed on December 7, 1989, one day late.
• Plaintiff: Contended that the statute of limitations began to run on December 7, 1987, when the full extent of her injury (trimalleolar fracture) was discovered during surgery, making the December 7, 1989, filing timely. She argued that an injury is not "ascertainable" until a correct diagnosis is made.

Legal Issues

• Did the Plaintiff's complaint comply with the two-year statute of limitations under NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-15(A)?
• When does the statute of limitations begin to run under the Tort Claims Act: at the time of the injury or when the full extent of the injury is ascertained?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for non-compliance with the statute of limitations.

Reasons

Per Alarid J. (Bivins C.J. and Donnelly J. concurring):

• The Court held that the statute of limitations under NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-15(A), begins to run when the injury is ascertainable, which occurs when the Plaintiff is aware of the injury and its connection to the alleged wrongful act.
• The Court distinguished this case from medical malpractice cases where injuries are inherently unknowable or latent, noting that the Plaintiff's injury was immediately apparent on December 6, 1987, when she fell and was diagnosed with a broken ankle.
• The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the statute of limitations should begin on December 7, 1987, when the full extent of her injury was discovered during surgery. It emphasized that the law does not require the full extent of damages to be known for the statute of limitations to commence.
• The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's complaint, filed on December 7, 1989, was one day late and therefore barred by the statute of limitations.