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 Defendant, a volunteer chaplain for the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department, was driving a department-issued vehicle while running a personal errand at a Wal-Mart parking lot when the vehicle rolled over the Plaintiff's foot. The Plaintiff, a 16-year-old part-time Wal-Mart employee, filed a claim nearly three years after the incident, alleging injuries caused by the Defendant's actions (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, finding that the Defendant was a public employee acting within the scope of his duties and that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (paras 1, 4).
- Court of Appeals of New Mexico: Reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings (current decision).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the Defendant was acting outside the scope of his volunteer duties at the time of the accident and was therefore not covered by the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant's role as a chaplain was discretionary and lacked sufficient control by the Sheriff's Department to qualify him as a public employee (paras 4, 6-8).
- Defendant-Appellee: Asserted that he was a public employee acting within the scope of his duties at the time of the accident, as he was on-call and using a department-issued vehicle. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (paras 4, 6-8, 10).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant a "public employee" under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act?
- Was the Defendant acting within the scope of his duties at the time of the accident?
- Did the two-year statute of limitations under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act bar the Plaintiff's claim?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 15).
Reasons
Per Fry J. (Pickard and Robinson JJ. concurring):
The Court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Defendant qualified as a "public employee" under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The Act excludes independent contractors, and the evidence presented, including affidavits and the lack of control over the Defendant's work by the Sheriff's Department, raised questions about the Defendant's employment status (paras 6-8).
The Court also determined that there were unresolved factual disputes about whether the Defendant was acting within the scope of his duties at the time of the accident. The Defendant's reliance on habit evidence and lack of memory was insufficient to establish that he was performing authorized or required duties at the time of the incident. Unlike in Medina v. Fuller, the Defendant did not demonstrate an obligation to respond to calls or establish a clear connection between his actions and his chaplain duties (paras 9-14).
The Court concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case that he was acting within the scope of his duties as a public employee. The case was remanded for further proceedings to resolve these factual disputes (paras 14-15).