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 six-year-old child was injured in October 1992 after falling from monkey bars at an elementary school playground in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The child’s grandmother informed the teacher of the incident the same evening, and the teacher reported it to the school principal the following day. A formal notice under the Tort Claims Act was not filed until March 1994, approximately 17 months later, after the child’s grandfather contacted legal counsel. The lawsuit alleged negligence in the maintenance and operation of the playground (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Albuquerque Public Schools (APS), holding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the 90-day notice requirement under the Tort Claims Act (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the 90-day notice requirement under the Tort Claims Act should not apply to minors incapable of meeting the requirement, and that the grandmother’s report to the teacher constituted actual notice (paras 3, 5).
- Defendant-Appellee (APS): Contended that the 90-day notice requirement applied to all claimants, including minors, and that the child’s grandparents, as capable adults, should have provided timely notice. APS also denied receiving actual notice through the grandmother’s report (paras 3, 5, 7).
Legal Issues
- Does the 90-day notice requirement under the Tort Claims Act apply to minors who are incapable of meeting the requirement?
- Can a minor be held accountable for the failure of their parents or guardians to provide timely notice under the Tort Claims Act?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 3).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Donnelly and Wechsler JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the 90-day notice requirement under the Tort Claims Act does not apply to minors who are incapable of meeting the requirement. The Court emphasized that a six-year-old child, like the plaintiff, lacks the capacity to comply with such legal obligations (paras 4-5).
The Court rejected APS’s argument that the presence of capable adults, such as the child’s grandparents, created a legal duty to act on the child’s behalf. It found no legislative mandate imposing such a duty and declined to impute the negligence of adults to the child (paras 5-6, 13). The Court relied on precedent from Tafoya v. Doe and similar cases from other jurisdictions, which safeguard minors’ rights and avoid penalizing them for the inaction of adults (paras 6, 11-13).
The Court also noted that the Tort Claims Act lacks explicit provisions requiring parents or guardians to provide notice on behalf of minors or tolling the notice period for minors incapable of compliance (paras 6, 10). It concluded that applying the notice requirement to such minors would violate principles of due process and fairness (paras 9, 13).
The Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its findings (para 15).