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 workplace accident where a road construction foreman was fatally struck by a backing tractor-trailer on November 10, 1987. The tractor, manufactured by Ford Motor Company, and the trailer, manufactured by CMI Corporation, were owned by Broce Construction Company. The tractor had an audible reverse signal alarm installed by Broce, but the trailer did not. The foreman's son, as the personal representative of the estate, filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging negligence and strict products liability against the manufacturers, sellers, and owner of the equipment (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Valencia County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Broce Construction Company, Ford Motor Company, CMI Corporation, Rust Equipment Company, and Richardson Ford Sales, Inc., dismissing the wrongful death claims. Denied a motion to dismiss a complaint-in-intervention filed by the workers' compensation provider seeking reimbursement of benefits paid (paras 4-7).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that Broce, as the registered owner, had a non-delegable duty to ensure the safety of its equipment, including the installation and maintenance of reverse signal alarms. Claimed that the manufacturers and sellers of the tractor and trailer were liable for failing to install factory-installed reverse signal alarms, which would have reduced the risk of such accidents (paras 10-11, 23-25).
- Defendants-Appellees (Broce, Ford, CMI, Rust, Richardson): Contended that Broce was merely a technical owner and had relinquished control of the equipment to Mountain States Constructors. Argued that the manufacturers and sellers had no duty to install reverse signal alarms, as the need for such devices arose only after the equipment was assembled and used in specific configurations (paras 11-12, 29-30).
- Plaintiff-in-Intervention (Workers' Compensation Provider): Sought reimbursement for benefits paid to the deceased's family, asserting a statutory right to recover from any damages awarded in the wrongful death action (paras 16-18).
Legal Issues
- Did Broce Construction Company, as the registered owner of the tractor-trailer, have a non-delegable duty to ensure the safety of its equipment?
- Were the manufacturers and sellers of the tractor and trailer liable under negligence or strict products liability for failing to install reverse signal alarms?
- Was the workers' compensation provider entitled to intervene in the wrongful death lawsuit to seek reimbursement for benefits paid?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment in favor of Broce Construction Company and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 15).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgments in favor of Ford Motor Company, CMI Corporation, Rust Equipment Company, and Richardson Ford Sales, Inc., reinstating the negligence and strict products liability claims (para 39).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order allowing the workers' compensation provider's intervention and remanded with instructions to delay intervention until a judgment for damages is ready to be entered (para 20).
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Apodaca and Flores JJ. concurring):
Broce's Liability: The court found that Broce, as the registered owner of the tractor-trailer, could not avoid liability by claiming it had ceased operations or transferred control to Mountain States Constructors. Evidence of Broce's continued corporate activity and ownership of the equipment created genuine issues of material fact regarding its liability (paras 13-15).
Manufacturers' and Sellers' Liability: The court held that the manufacturers and sellers of the tractor and trailer could be liable under strict products liability and negligence theories for failing to install reverse signal alarms. The court rejected the argument that the need for such alarms arose only after the equipment was assembled, noting that the tractor and trailer were independently operable and registered. The question of whether the absence of alarms rendered the products unreasonably dangerous was a matter for the jury (paras 26-39).
Workers' Compensation Provider's Intervention: The court ruled that the workers' compensation provider's right to reimbursement arises only after a judgment for damages is awarded. Allowing intervention at an earlier stage could prejudice the plaintiff and create conflicts of interest, particularly since the provider also insured two of the defendants (paras 18-20).
Unresolved Issues: The court declined to address issues related to the distribution of damages, as they were not yet ripe for review. It noted that the wrongful death statute permits only one claim for damages, and any recovery would be distributed according to the statutory scheme (para 22).