338 P.3d 1265
N.M.2014Background
- Benavides, a nurse, slipped on a wet floor at Eastern NM Medical Center in 2006, sustaining multiple injuries.
- She began receiving total disability benefits at the maximum rate for the year, thereafter continuing at that rate.
- Employer challenged permanent partial disability, maximum medical improvement; Benavides sought a 10% increase under 52-1-10(B) for failure to supply a safety device.
- Evidence showed no wet floor signs were posted at the accident site; a coworker testified signs were sometimes provided but not deployed near the floor.
- Employer argued wet floor signs were not safety devices; the WCJ found signs were in general use but not properly deployed.
- New Mexico Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a wet floor sign is a safety device and whether failure to deploy warrants a 10% increase; it also considered the constitutionality of Section 52-5-1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a wet floor sign a safety device under 52-1-10(B)? | Benavides: sign is a safety device that warns of danger. | Eastern NM Medical Center: sign is not a safety device, merely a safety rule. | Yes; wet floor sign is a safety device. |
| Did employer fail to supply a safety device by not posting signs at the site? | Benavides: failure to deploy signs near the wet floor constitutes failure to supply a safety device. | Eastern NM Medical Center: signs were supplied elsewhere and not required at all times. | Yes; failure to supply a safety device entitles 10% increase. |
| Does §52-5-1 violate the separation of powers doctrine? | Worker contends the statute improperly restricts liberal construction and legislative intent. | Employer maintains statute is constitutional and limits liberal construction. | No; §52-5-1 constitutional. |
| Should the 10% increase apply when the device was not used but existed in general use? | Benavides argues general-use concept supports liability for not deploying. | Employer asserts general-use evidence is insufficient for a 10% increase. | 10% increase awarded; failure to deploy supports liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Zia Co., 100 N.M. 8, 664 P.2d 1021 (1983 NMCA) (safety devices may be tangible instruments to lessen specific dangers)
- Jaramillo v. Anaconda Co., 95 N.M. 728, 625 P.2d 1245 (1981 NMCA) (safety device concept debated when device left unprotected by others)
- Hicks v. Artesia Alfalfa Growers’ Ass’n, 66 N.M. 165, 344 P.2d 475 (1959 NMSC) (not all safety-promoting actions qualify as safety devices)
- Apodaca v. Allison & Haney, 258 P.2d 711 (1953 NMSC) (safety indicators contextual to dangers; safety devices must prevent specific dangers)
- Baca v. Gutierrez, 423 P.2d 617 (1967 NMSC) (penalty for failure to provide safety devices; legislative intent to protect workers)