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, a customer of the Defendant's restaurant, alleged that he tripped and fell over a parking barrier in the parking lot adjacent to the restaurant at approximately 2:30 a.m. on August 10, 1989. He claimed the Defendant was negligent in failing to properly light the parking lot and in allowing the parking barriers to be placed without proper marking, creating a hazardous condition (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, finding that the Defendant owed no duty to the Plaintiff to maintain or illuminate the parking lot where the accident occurred (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the Defendant owed a duty to maintain and illuminate the parking lot under the lease agreement and through its actions, which assumed responsibility for the area. The Plaintiff also contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Defendant had no duty to ensure the safety of the parking lot (paras 1, 8-10).
- Defendant-Appellee: Asserted that it had no duty to maintain the parking lot under the terms of its lease agreement, which placed responsibility for the parking lot on the Landowner. The Defendant also argued that the Plaintiff failed to preserve the issue of duty for appellate review (paras 5, 8-10).
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant owe a duty to the Plaintiff to maintain and illuminate the parking lot where the accident occurred?
- Was the issue of the Defendant's duty properly preserved for appellate review?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 18).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Flores J. concurring):
The Court found that the trial court erred in concluding that the Defendant owed no duty to the Plaintiff. Under New Mexico law, a business owner or occupant owes a duty of ordinary care to keep the premises safe for business invitees. The lease agreement required the Defendant to maintain and light the parking area within the leased premises, which included the area where the Plaintiff fell. This created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the Defendant's duty to the Plaintiff, precluding summary judgment (paras 6-7, 13-17).
The Court also rejected the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff failed to preserve the issue of duty for appellate review. The Plaintiff's docketing statement and response to the motion for summary judgment sufficiently raised the issue, and the trial court addressed it in its decision (paras 8-12).
Per Hartz J. (Specially Concurring):
Hartz J. agreed with the majority's conclusion that summary judgment was inappropriate but wrote separately to express concerns about the preservation of the issue. Hartz J. noted that the Plaintiff did not explicitly raise the lease-based duty argument in the trial court but found it appropriate to review the issue on appeal because the trial court addressed it in its decision (paras 20-23).