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 case arose from a head-on collision on Interstate 25 near Bernalillo, New Mexico, in January 1994. An elderly driver, traveling the wrong way in the northbound lane, collided with a vehicle occupied by the deceased and his son. The collision resulted in the deaths of the elderly driver and the deceased, while the deceased's son sustained injuries. There were no witnesses to how the elderly driver entered the highway or how long she had been traveling in the wrong direction (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, May 1997: The trial court initially indicated its intent to deny the Defendant's motion for summary judgment but later granted the motion after further arguments and submissions (paras 3-4).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the Defendant had a statutory and common law duty to maintain safe highways and post appropriate warning signs. They contended that the absence of such signs contributed to the accident and that the issues of breach of duty and proximate cause should be determined by a jury (paras 1, 7, 11).
- Defendant-Appellee: Asserted that there was no evidence of how the elderly driver accessed the highway, that it owed no duty of care in this context, and that Plaintiffs could not establish proximate cause. The Defendant also argued that Plaintiffs failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding breach of duty (paras 3, 12-13).
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant have a statutory or common law duty to maintain safe highways and post warning signs?
- Was there a genuine issue of material fact regarding the Defendant's breach of duty?
- Was there a genuine issue of material fact regarding proximate cause?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant (para 20).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Donnelly and Armijo JJ. concurring):
Duty: The Court held that the Defendant had both statutory and common law duties to maintain safe highways and post appropriate traffic-control signs. The statutory duty under Section 66-7-102 required the Defendant to reasonably regulate, warn, or guide traffic. The common law duty required the Defendant to exercise ordinary care to protect the public from foreseeable harm (paras 7-11).
Breach: The Court determined that whether the Defendant breached its duty was a factual question for the jury. The Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence, including expert testimony, to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the absence of warning signs constituted a breach of duty (paras 11-16).
Proximate Cause: The Court found that proximate cause is generally a question of fact for the jury unless the facts are undisputed and the inferences are clear. The Plaintiffs' expert provided evidence suggesting that the absence of warning signs contributed to the accident, creating a genuine issue of material fact on proximate cause (paras 17-19).
The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs had raised sufficient factual disputes to preclude summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 20).