2013 NMCA 020
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- On March 17, 2006, a pickup truck in Del Sol Shopping Center’s parking lot suddenly accelerated due to driver and vehicle failure and crashed into Concentra Medical Clinic, killing a mother and her son and injuring others.
- Lawsuits were filed by the decedents’ estates, surviving victims, and families—collectively Plaintiffs—alleging Del Sol owners/operators negligently failed to post adequate signs or install barriers.
- Two district courts granted summary judgment, holding no duty to protect inside the building from a reckless driver due to unforeseeability as a matter of law.
- The appellate courts consolidated the appeals and affirm the district court rulings, but on policy-based grounds drawn from Restatement (Third) of Torts and Edward C. v. City of Albuquerque.
- Plaintiff Rachel Ruiz had known seizure disorder, prior vehicle failures, and allegedly drove despite doctors’ warnings, eventually causing the collision into Concentra.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a duty to protect indoor invitees from vehicles that depart the parking lot? | Solchenberger plaintiffs urge a policy-driven duty under Restatement Third. | Del Sol argues no duty to protect inside buildings from runaway vehicles; foreseeability limits liability. | No expanded duty to protect indoors; duty remains ordinary care, not a guaranteed barrier to prevent such incidents. |
| Does Edward C. demand foreseeability-based duty, or does it endorse a policy-driven approach? | Edward C. supports a broader, policy-based duty not limited by foreseeability. | Edward C. shifts duty analysis away from strict foreseeability. | Edward C. adopts a policy-centered duty test; foreseeability is only a factor, not the controlling question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edward C. v. City of Albuquerque, 148 P.3d 1086 (N.M. 2010) (adopts Restatement Third approach; disapproves using foreseeability to limit liability)
- Romero v. Giant Stop-N-Go of N.M., Inc., 212 P.3d 408 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (foreseeability of criminal act in parking lot not a duty trigger in that context)
- Quality Pontiac, Inc. v. Bohn, 73 P.3d 181 (N.M. 2003) (duty requires analysis of both foreseeability and policy; expands beyond simple foreseeability)
- Ramirez v. Armstrong, 673 P.2d 822 (N.M. 1983) (foreseeable plaintiff concept historically guided duty, later criticized)
- Calkins v. Cox Estates, 792 P.2d 36 (N.M. 1990) (duty as policy determination; foreseeability not sole determinant)