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 arises from a September 1985 automobile collision at an uncontrolled intersection in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The Plaintiff was driving westbound on St. Michael's Drive, while the Defendant was eastbound and attempting a left turn onto Pacheco Street. The Defendant did not see the Plaintiff's vehicle before the collision, and the Plaintiff could not recall the accident. Physical evidence suggested the Plaintiff braked and veered to avoid the collision, while the Defendant took no evasive action (paras 5-7).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: The jury found the Defendant 76% negligent and the Plaintiff 24% negligent, awarding the Plaintiff $91,267.30 in damages, reduced to $69,363.15 after comparative negligence. The court further reduced the award by $14,737.93 for the Defendant's post-offer costs under Rule 68. The court denied the Plaintiff's motions for a new trial, additur, and reconsideration (paras 2-4).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that the trial court erred by refusing to give a jury instruction on the sudden emergency doctrine, denying her recovery of costs as the prevailing party, and awarding all costs to the Defendant (paras 1, 4, 8, 22).
- Defendant: Contended that the sudden emergency instruction was unwarranted due to insufficient evidence, that the Plaintiff was not the prevailing party under Rule 68, and that the costs awarded were proper (paras 12, 17, 28).
Legal Issues
- Was the Plaintiff entitled to a sudden emergency jury instruction?
- Did the trial court err in its assessment of costs under Rule 68?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial on both liability and damages (para 34).
- The award of costs was set aside, and the trial court was directed to reassess costs after the new trial (para 34).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Chavez J. concurring):
Sudden Emergency Instruction:
The Plaintiff was entitled to a sudden emergency instruction as there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that she reacted to an emergency created by the Defendant's left turn. The refusal to give the instruction deprived the jury of the opportunity to evaluate the Plaintiff's actions under the appropriate standard of care (paras 8-13). The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the instruction was unnecessary or repetitive, emphasizing that the sudden emergency doctrine provides a specific standard distinct from ordinary care (paras 14-16).
Costs:
The trial court erred in concluding that the Plaintiff was not the prevailing party. Under Rule 68, the Plaintiff was entitled to recover pre-offer costs as the prevailing party, while the Defendant could recover post-offer costs. The trial court's blanket award of all costs to the Defendant was improper (paras 24-26).
New Trial Scope:
A new trial on both liability and damages was warranted because the failure to instruct on sudden emergency may have affected the jury's apportionment of negligence and the damages award (para 21).
Per Bivins J. (dissenting in part):
Bivins J. dissented on the issue of the sudden emergency instruction, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support its inclusion. He noted the lack of critical facts, such as the Plaintiff's speed and distance from the intersection, and concluded that the jury would have to speculate to find a sudden emergency. He also argued that the instruction was unnecessary because the Plaintiff had no alternative course of action (paras 36-55).
Bivins J. concurred with the majority's analysis of the costs issue (para 36).