AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 psychiatric hospital hired a former detention center employee as a mental health technician based on favorable recommendations from his previous supervisors. The employee later sexually harassed and assaulted a patient under his care. The recommendations omitted prior allegations and disciplinary actions against the employee for sexual misconduct while working at the detention center (paras 2-9).

Procedural History

• District Court, Robert E. Robles, District Judge: Granted summary judgment for the Defendant, ruling that the County owed no duty of care to the Plaintiff and was immune from suit under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (para 10).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the County's employees negligently misrepresented the former employee's record, which proximately caused her assault. Claimed that the County owed a duty of care and that the Tort Claims Act waived immunity for the negligent acts of law enforcement officers (paras 10, 24-25).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the County owed no duty of care to the Plaintiff, that the Tort Claims Act did not waive immunity for the alleged acts, and that employment references were protected by statutory immunity. Also argued that the acts of the supervisors were outside the scope of their duties (paras 10, 25-27).

Legal Issues

• Does an employer owe a duty of reasonable care to third parties when providing employment recommendations that could foreseeably result in physical harm?
• Can law enforcement officers be held liable for negligent misrepresentation under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act?
• Were the County's employees acting within the scope of their duties when providing the recommendations?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Defendant.
• The Court of Appeals granted partial summary judgment for the Plaintiff, holding that the County's employees were law enforcement officers under the Tort Claims Act and that the Plaintiff's allegations stated a viable claim.
• The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the employees acted within the scope of their duties (paras 39-40).

Reasons

Per Bosson J. (Hartz and Armijo JJ. concurring):

• The Court recognized a common-law duty for employers to exercise reasonable care when providing employment recommendations, particularly when misrepresentations create a foreseeable risk of physical harm to third parties. This duty extends to third-party victims like the Plaintiff (paras 12-22).
• The Court adopted principles from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 311, which imposes liability for negligent misrepresentation causing physical harm (paras 18-20).
• The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff's lack of reliance on the recommendations barred her claim, emphasizing that the harm resulted from the hospital's reliance on the misrepresentations (paras 23-24).
• The Court found that the Tort Claims Act waived immunity for negligent acts of law enforcement officers that result in assault or battery. The Plaintiff's allegations satisfied this requirement (paras 32-34).
• The Court determined that factual disputes existed regarding whether the employees acted within the scope of their duties, precluding summary judgment on this issue (paras 36-37).
• The Court acknowledged concerns about discouraging employer references but concluded that the policy gains of imposing a duty to avoid misrepresentation outweighed potential drawbacks (paras 27-31).