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 car accident where the Plaintiff and Defendant were traveling in opposite directions. A third party, Roy Robinson, suddenly pulled in front of the Defendant, causing the Defendant to swerve and collide with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had previously settled a separate lawsuit against Robinson (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, October 13, 1993: The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant, and judgment was entered accordingly (para 5).
- District Court, October 25, 1993: The Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, citing the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in Dunleavy v. Miller, which discontinued the sudden-emergency jury instruction used in the first trial (para 5).
- District Court, Date Unspecified: The court granted the Plaintiff's motion for a new trial, finding that the Dunleavy decision justified a new trial (para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the sudden-emergency jury instruction was valid at the time of the first trial and that the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on a decision announced after the trial. The Defendant also contended that the Plaintiff's acceptance of a pre-trial offer of judgment was untimely and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to costs exceeding the offer of judgment (paras 9-10, 20-22).
- Plaintiff: Asserted that the sudden-emergency instruction was improper under the Dunleavy decision and justified a new trial. The Plaintiff also argued that the district court erred in rejecting her res ipsa loquitur jury instruction and that she was entitled to costs from the second trial (paras 6, 23-26).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on the Dunleavy decision?
- Was the Defendant's pre-trial offer of judgment valid and timely under NMRA 1-068?
- Was the Plaintiff entitled to a res ipsa loquitur jury instruction?
- Was the Plaintiff entitled to costs from the second trial?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant a new trial, reject the res ipsa loquitur instruction, and award costs to the Plaintiff (paras 6, 22, 27).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Apodaca CJ. and Alarid J. concurring):
New Trial: The district court acted within its discretion in granting a new trial. The Dunleavy decision, which discontinued the sudden-emergency jury instruction, applied retroactively to cases still pending. The Plaintiff had objected to the instruction during the first trial, and the district court reasonably determined that the instruction could have confused the jury (paras 8-19).
Offer of Judgment: The Defendant's pre-trial offer of judgment was untimely under NMRA 1-068 because it did not allow the Plaintiff sufficient time to respond before the trial began. As a result, the cost-shifting provision of NMRA 1-068 did not apply, and the Plaintiff was entitled to costs from the second trial (paras 20-22).
Res Ipsa Loquitur: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the evidence raised questions of negligence involving multiple parties, including Robinson. The Plaintiff was required to prove causation, and the district court properly rejected the instruction (paras 23-26).
Costs: The district court's award of costs to the Plaintiff was upheld as consistent with the rules of civil procedure and the circumstances of the case (paras 20-22).