356 P.3d 17
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Manuel Armenta, an employee of A.S. Horner, was provided use of a company Chevy Suburban while on a multi-day road-maintenance assignment away from home.
- Manuel was on Defendant’s internal “do not drive” list due to a prior DWI conviction, but at times during the trip he drove the Suburban and had access to the keys.
- After work one evening, employees pooled money for a barbecue; Manuel drove from the motel to buy groceries and liquor and later left the motel with another employee headed toward Raton.
- Manuel crashed about five miles north of Springer and died; his post-mortem BAC was .23.
- Plaintiff (Manuel’s personal representative) sued Defendant for negligent entrustment; the district court granted summary judgment for Defendant and Plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Workers’ Compensation Act (traveling-employee exception) bar the tort claim? | Manuel was not acting in the course of employment when he left the motel intoxicated and drove to Raton. | Manuel was a traveling employee covered continuously while away from home; the Act provides the exclusive remedy. | Court held the traveling-employee exception did not cover Manuel’s conduct (intoxicated, trip to Raton unrelated to work); Act is not exclusive remedy here. |
| Was Defendant liable for negligent entrustment (permission/entrustment element)? | A jury could infer implied permission because supervisors knew Manuel had driven the Suburban during the trip and knew he had the keys and had been drinking. | Defendant had restrictions (do-not-drive list; supervisors told employees not to leave and vehicles to be parked except to pick up supplies) and did not expressly permit the post-dinner drive. | Court held there are genuine factual disputes about implied permission/entrustment and reversed summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. San Juan Concrete Co., 123 N.M. 537, 943 P.2d 571 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997) (recognizes an entrustor may be liable to an intoxicated entrustee for gross negligence and reckless disregard)
- Ramirez v. Dawson Prod. Partners, 128 N.M. 601, 995 P.2d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (articulates traveling-employee exception and factors for leisure activities during travel)
- Chavez v. ABF Freight Sys., 130 N.M. 524, 27 P.3d 1011 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (factors to decide whether activity is incidental to employment)
- Hermosillo v. Leadingham, 129 N.M. 721, 13 P.3d 79 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (adopts Restatement approach to negligent entrustment)
- Casebolt v. Cowan, 829 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1992) (permits first-party recovery by an intoxicated entrustee under comparative-fault principles)