This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A minor was struck by a vehicle while crossing State Road 3 to reach a school bus stop. The school bus driver had a practice of requiring children to cross the road to meet the bus on its return trip, without instructing them to wait for the bus to arrive before crossing. The school district and its transportation director were responsible for the bus route and stop locations (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that they were entitled to immunity under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that immunity was waived under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act due to the defendants' negligent operation of the school bus and negligent maintenance of State Road 3, specifically the placement of the bus stop (para 1).
- Defendants-Appellees: Claimed immunity under the Act, arguing that the bus stop location was part of the road's design, not maintenance, and that the bus driver was not operating the bus at the time of the accident (paras 1, 7).
Legal Issues
- Was the placement of the school bus stop a matter of negligent maintenance or part of the road's design, and thus immune under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act?
- Did the bus driver's actions constitute negligent operation of the school bus under the Act?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment granted to the defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 13).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Apodaca and Hartz JJ. concurring):
Negligent Maintenance of Highway: The court held that the placement of the bus stop involved elements of traffic control and pedestrian safety, which could be considered maintenance rather than design. The defendants failed to provide evidence that the bus stop location was part of the road's design, precluding summary judgment on this issue (paras 3-6).
Negligent Operation of the School Bus: The court found that the bus driver's practice of requiring children to cross the road to meet the bus constituted "operation" of the bus under the Act. The fact that the bus was not present at the time of the accident did not negate the potential liability for creating a dangerous condition (paras 7-11).
Special Concurrence by Hartz J.:
- Hartz J. agreed with the majority but emphasized that the interpretation of "maintenance" in New Mexico case law had expanded significantly. He noted that the legislature's 1991 amendment to the Tort Claims Act, which excluded certain activities from the definition of "maintenance," suggested a narrower interpretation. However, since the cause of action arose in 1989, the amendment did not apply to this case (paras 15-18).