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, who was intoxicated, was left in the Defendant's running truck late at night in the parking lot of a bar on Central Avenue while the Defendant went inside to use the bathroom. During this time, a man entered the truck and attacked the Plaintiff, causing her significant injuries (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, holding that the Defendant owed no duty of care to the Plaintiff and that the criminal act of the assailant was an intervening superseding cause absolving the Defendant of liability (headnotes, para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the Defendant owed her a duty of care as she was intoxicated and under the Defendant's charge. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant's actions in leaving her in a running truck in a high-risk area created a foreseeable risk of harm (paras 5-7, 12-14).
- Defendant-Appellee: Asserted that she owed no duty of care to the Plaintiff and that the criminal act of the assailant was an unforeseeable intervening superseding cause, absolving her of liability (paras 3, 8-9, 11).
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff under the circumstances?
- Was the criminal act of the assailant an intervening superseding cause that absolved the Defendant of liability?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant (para 16).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Minzner C.J. and Chavez J. concurring):
Duty of Care: The Court held that the Defendant may have owed the Plaintiff a duty of ordinary care under the circumstances. The Defendant had "taken charge" of the intoxicated Plaintiff, creating a special relationship that required the Defendant to exercise reasonable care to ensure the Plaintiff's safety. The Court relied on principles from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324, which imposes liability on those who voluntarily take charge of a helpless person and fail to exercise reasonable care (paras 5-7, 10).
Proximate Cause: The Court found that the criminal act of the assailant did not, as a matter of law, constitute an intervening superseding cause. The Defendant's actions in leaving the Plaintiff intoxicated in a running truck outside a bar late at night could have made the harm foreseeable. The Court emphasized that questions of proximate cause and foreseeability are generally for the jury to decide unless reasonable minds could not differ (paras 11-14).
Summary Judgment: The Court concluded that the facts were susceptible to reasonable conflicting inferences regarding both the Defendant's duty and whether it was breached. Therefore, summary judgment was improper (paras 15-16).