2015 NMCA 113
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Decedent Charles Saenz, an ironworker employed by a subcontractor (Alamo/T&T), fell from >25 feet while working on a movie-theater steel erection project and died; he was not tied off despite having harness/lanyard available.
- General contractor Ranack hired Alamo to perform steel work; Ranack was alleged to have failed to enforce fall-protection, supervise safety, and pressured speed over safety.
- Plaintiff (Virginia Saenz, individually and as personal representative) sued Ranack for wrongful death (Alamo/T&T were covered by workers’ compensation and not named as defendants).
- Jury apportioned fault: Ranack 45%, Alamo/T&T 30%, Saenz 25%; awarded damages to wife and children but $0 to the estate; punitive damages awarded to family members; trial court denied a mistrial and denied JNOV seeking Saiz-based strict/joint-and-several liability.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals considered (1) whether the Saiz nondelegable-duty/joint-and-several-liability doctrine applies to employees of subcontractors and (2) whether the zero award to the estate was supported by substantial evidence or required a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Saiz-based joint and several liability/nondelegable duty applies to employees of subcontractors | Saenz’s work was inherently dangerous so Ranack should be jointly and severally liable under Saiz (public-policy exception). | Montanez bars applying Restatement §416/§427 protections to employees of independent contractors; Saiz doesn’t overrule Montanez. | Montanez remains controlling; Saiz does not create joint-and-several liability for subcontractor employees. |
| Whether the district court erred by giving UJI 13-1830 with conflicting bracketed language (loss of consortium vs. excluding ‘‘loss of deceased’s society’’) | Instruction confused jury allocation of damages among estate and survivors. | No demonstrable prejudice from the instruction error; jury question was clarified in court with parties’ agreement. | Instruction was erroneous per UJI use note but no reversible prejudice shown. |
| Whether the $0 award to the estate is supported by substantial evidence or requires a new trial | Zero award was not supported by the evidence (e.g., evidence of wages and pecuniary loss); jury likely confused or misallocated awards. | Jury could reasonably conclude zero given evidence of decedent’s criminal history, intermittent support, and other mitigating facts. | The $0 award to the estate is not supported by substantial evidence; remand for a new trial on estate damages only. |
| Whether trial waiver principles bar challenging the zero award after jury discharge | Plaintiff argued challenge preserved as Rule 1-059 new-trial motion based on insufficiency/weight of evidence. | Defendant argued failure to object before discharge waived the issue under Thompson and related waiver rules. | Waiver rules for ambiguous/inconsistent verdicts do not bar a Rule 1-059 challenge that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence; Plaintiff’s sufficiency challenge preserved and meritorious as to estate damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saiz v. Belen Sch. Dist., 827 P.2d 102 (N.M. 1992) (adopted Restatement §§ 413/416/427; imposed nondelegable duty/joint-and-several liability for inherently dangerous/peculiar-risk activities as public-policy exception)
- N.M. Elec. Serv. Co. v. Montanez, 551 P.2d 634 (N.M. 1976) (employees of independent contractors are not within the class protected by Restatement §§ 416/427; limits Saiz’s reach for subcontractor employees)
- Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 646 P.2d 579 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982) (abolished joint-and-several liability in light of comparative negligence principles)
- Scott v. Rizzo, 634 P.2d 1234 (N.M. 1981) (adopted pure comparative negligence; background for Bartlett)
- Gabaldon v. Erisa Mortgage Co., 990 P.2d 197 (N.M. 1999) (articulated test/approach to determining whether an activity is inherently dangerous as a matter of law)
- Valdez v. Cillessen & Son, Inc., 734 P.2d 1258 (N.M. 1987) (recognition of hirer liability under retained-control theory; distinguishes vicarious/joint-and-several doctrines)