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

The case arose from a May 1994 automobile collision at an intersection in Roswell, New Mexico, involving a fifteen-year-old driver (Defendant) and the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sought compensatory damages for medical expenses and property damage resulting from the accident (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, April 21, 1997: The trial court ordered the parties to binding arbitration, determining that the parties had agreed to arbitration during a pretrial hearing. The Defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied (paras 4-5).
• Arbitration Award, 1998: The arbitrator awarded $60,000 in general damages to the Plaintiff, and the trial court confirmed the arbitration award (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (Defendants): Argued that the trial court's order compelling arbitration was not a final order and that they were not required to appeal it immediately. They also contended that the order compelling arbitration was unconstitutional as it deprived them of their right to a jury trial without a knowing or intentional waiver (paras 1, 16).
• Appellee (Plaintiff): Asserted that the order compelling arbitration was a final order, and the Defendants failed to appeal it within the required timeframe. The Plaintiff also argued that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable under common law principles (paras 7, 12).

Legal Issues

• Was the trial court's order compelling arbitration a final order requiring an appeal within thirty days?
• Did the order compelling arbitration violate the Defendants' constitutional right to a jury trial?

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed as untimely (para 19).

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Donnelly and Sutin JJ. concurring):

• The court held that the trial court's order compelling arbitration was a final order because it resolved all issues of law and fact, leaving nothing further for the trial court to address. The Defendants were required to appeal the order within thirty days, but they failed to do so, instead participating in arbitration and waiting until after the arbitration award to appeal (paras 7-10).
• The court rejected the Defendants' argument that the order was not final because it did not explicitly state that arbitration was binding. The court emphasized that the Defendants had the opportunity to appeal the order but forfeited their right by proceeding with arbitration (paras 16-17).
• On the issue of the jury trial waiver, the court found that by agreeing to arbitration and failing to appeal the order compelling arbitration, the Defendants effectively waived their right to a jury trial. The court noted that the Defendants could not challenge the arbitration process after receiving an unfavorable award (paras 16-18).