Richey v. Hammond Conservancy District
2015 NMCA 043
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Richey, a temporary worker assigned to Hammond Conservancy District, was ordered to use a small-diameter, high-pressure hose to clean culverts despite prior worker warnings that the hose was difficult to control and had caused “near misses.”
- Richey alleged he objected, defendant compelled him to use the hose, the hose "failed to prevent the loss of control," and high-pressure water was injected into him causing severe injury.
- Richey sued under the intentional-conduct (Delgado) exception to the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act; Hammond moved to dismiss under Rule 1-012(B)(6) arguing exclusivity and governmental immunity.
- The district court granted dismissal with prejudice; Richey appealed, arguing his amended complaint sufficiently pleaded Delgado elements and egregious conduct.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, applying New Mexico’s notice pleading standard and Delgado/Morales guidance on the threshold egregiousness required to plead an intentional-tort claim outside the Act.
- The Court reversed, holding the amended complaint adequately pleaded Delgado claims and remanded for further proceedings; it left the governmental-immunity question for the district court on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint pleaded facts sufficient to state a Delgado intentional-conduct claim | Richey alleged specific facts: prior warnings, repeated objections, defendant-directed use of known-dangerous equipment, and that injury was virtually certain — tracking Delgado elements | Hammond argued Richey failed to plead the employer’s subjective intent and did not meet the Delgado threshold of egregiousness; also framed as notice-pleading insufficient | Court held the complaint, under New Mexico’s notice-pleading rules and accepting well-pleaded facts, sufficiently alleged Delgado elements and egregiousness; reversal and remand |
| Whether Morales/Special pleading rules require a heightened pleading standard for Delgado claims | Richey relied on notice pleading (Salazar I) and Delgado language in his complaint | Hammond urged application of Morales to demand more factual pleading of egregiousness/subjective intent at the complaint stage | Court reaffirmed notice-pleading applies; Morales does not impose a heightened pleading standard; factual development may occur later |
| Whether mere failure to provide safety measures can support a Delgado claim | Richey distinguished his claim as not a general lack of safety but a specific directive to use a known-dangerous tool despite warnings and objections | Hammond argued absence of safety measures alone cannot satisfy Delgado | Court agreed absence alone is insufficient but found Richey pleaded specific dangerous circumstance and compelled task making the Delgado exception plausible |
| Whether governmental immunity under the Tort Claims Act bars the claim | Richey asserted immunity was waived under applicable statute | Hammond claimed it is an arm of the State and immune | Court did not decide immunity; remanded for district court to address it on further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc., 34 P.3d 1148 (N.M. 2001) (establishes the three-part test and threshold for intentional-conduct exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity)
- Morales v. Reynolds, 97 P.3d 612 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (discusses procedural/evidentiary requirements and the egregiousness threshold post-Delgado)
- Salazar v. Torres (Salazar I), 122 P.3d 1279 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (applied notice-pleading to Delgado claims at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Salazar v. Torres (Salazar II), 158 P.3d 449 (N.M. 2007) (held workers may collect benefits while pursuing Delgado claims but final lump-sum settlement precludes Delgado suit)
- Coates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 976 P.2d 999 (N.M. 1999) (explains the Act’s exclusivity purpose and balance between employers and injured workers)