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 was driving on a residential street when her vehicle was struck by the Defendant, who was operating a backhoe. A witness observed signs of intoxication in the Defendant, including slurred speech, staggering, and the smell of alcohol. The Defendant had a history of multiple DWI convictions and was driving with a suspended license at the time of the accident (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The trial court granted the Defendants' motion for a directed verdict on the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages and precluded references to the Defendant's driving record for impeachment purposes. The jury awarded the Plaintiff compensatory damages, reduced by her percentage of fault, which the Defendants paid (paras 1, 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on punitive damages and in precluding the use of the Defendant's driving record for impeachment purposes. Claimed that evidence of the Defendant's intoxication and driving history was relevant to the punitive damages claim (paras 1, 4, 22).
- Defendants-Appellees: Contended that the Plaintiff waived her right to appeal by accepting payment of the judgment. Argued that a new trial on punitive damages would prejudice them and that the trial court correctly excluded the driving record for impeachment purposes (paras 6, 8, 22).
Legal Issues
- Did the Plaintiff waive her right to appeal by accepting payment of the judgment?
- Was the trial court correct in granting a directed verdict on the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages?
- Did the trial court err in precluding the use of the Defendant's driving record for impeachment purposes?
Disposition
- The Plaintiff did not waive her right to appeal (paras 6-7).
- The trial court's decision to grant a directed verdict on punitive damages was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial on that issue (paras 21, 25).
- The trial court's decision to preclude the use of the Defendant's driving record for impeachment purposes was affirmed (paras 22-24).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Donnelly and Armijo JJ. concurring):
Waiver of Right to Appeal: The Court held that the Plaintiff did not waive her right to appeal by accepting payment of the compensatory damages judgment. The punitive damages issue was distinct and severable from the compensatory damages award, and a new trial on punitive damages would not affect the compensatory damages already awarded (paras 6-7).
Directed Verdict on Punitive Damages: The Court found that the Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence, including testimony from a witness who observed signs of intoxication in the Defendant, to allow the issue of punitive damages to go to the jury. The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict, as the evidence could support a finding of reckless conduct justifying punitive damages (paras 15-21).
Impeachment with Driving Record: The Court upheld the trial court's decision to preclude the use of the Defendant's driving record for impeachment purposes. The deposition transcript did not indicate that the Defendant gave false answers, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence (paras 22-24).
The Court awarded costs on appeal to the Plaintiff (para 25).