Hernandez-Rios v. Management & Training Corporation
1:09-cv-00615
| D.N.M. | Mar 24, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez-Rios alleges a sex assault by a correctional officer at Otero County Prison Facility while in ICE custody (date range Sept 28–29, 2008).
- Plaintiff sues MTC, the operator of OCPF, on counts I–III (trespass/assault/battery; negligent hiring/supervision/retention; IIED) and Count IV (civil rights).
- MTC moves for summary judgment on common-law and punitive-damages claims and separately on Count IV; court grants the motion in full on those claims.
- Court analyzes vicarious liability theories, negligent-hiring theories, spoliation/negative-inference arguments, res ipsa loquitur, and punitive-damages standards under New Mexico law.
- Court finding: the employee acted outside the scope of employment; no evidence of negligent hiring/retention; spoliation/negative inferences not warranted; res ipsa loquitur inapplicable; no basis for punitive damages.
- Final posture: Counts I–III dismissed with prejudice; Count IV previously resolved in MTC’s favor; no further claims remaining.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MTC is vicariously liable for Diaz’s acts. | Hernandez-Rios argues supervisor-aided liability (aided-by-agency). | MTC contends Diaz acted outside scope; no supervisory aid. | Aided-by-agency theory not applicable; no supervisory status shown; no vicarious liability. |
| Whether MTC is liable for negligent hiring/supervision/retention. | MTC knew or should have known Diaz was unfit. | Plaintiff fails to show Diaz unfit for officer role. | No evidence of unfitness; summary judgment for MTC on negligent-hiring/supervision/retention. |
| Whether spoliation or res ipsa loquitur defeat summary judgment. | Evidence loss or alteration could support claims; spoliation inference possible. | No reasonable basis for spoliation inference; res ipsa inapplicable. | No basis for spoliation inference; res ipsa loquitur does not apply; judgment remains for MTC. |
| Whether punitive damages are warranted. | Punitive damages justified by malice or willfulness. | No evidence of culpable state of mind by MTC; within scope exception not shown. | No evidence of culpable mind; punitive-damages claim granted for MTC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ocana v. American Furniture Co., 135 N.M. 539, 91 P.3d 58 (2004) (employer not liable for employee's intentional torts absent aided-by-agency or supervisory involvement)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (employer liability for supervisory misconduct tied to supervisory authority)
- La Ranchitos v. Tierra Grande, Inc., 116 N.M. 222, 861 P.2d 263 (Ct. App. 1993) (a negligent-hiring/retention framework for employer liability)
- Medina v. Graham’s Cowboys, Inc., 113 N.M. 471, 827 P.2d 859 (Ct. App. 1992) (negligent hiring criteria—history of violence and public-contact risk)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary-judgment standard; burden on movant to show absence of genuine issue)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine disputes of material fact require trial; viewing record in light favorable to nonmovant)