326 P.3d 465
N.M.2014Background
- A truck crashed through the front glass of the Concentra medical clinic in the Del Sol Shopping Center in Santa Fe, killing three and injuring others.
- Plaintiffs sued Del Sol owners/operators for negligence, alleging failures such as lack of signage, speed bumps, barriers, and other traffic controls in the parking lot.
- District courts granted summary judgment, finding the crash "not foreseeable" and concluding defendants had no duty to protect invitees inside the building.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying a foreseeability-driven analysis to find no duty for shopping-center owners to protect patrons from errant vehicles.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed: it rejected foreseeability as a basis for determining duty and required courts to articulate non-foreseeability policy reasons when limiting or denying an ordinarily owed duty of care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether owner/occupiers of a shopping center owe a duty to protect invitees inside buildings from vehicles leaving parking areas | Del Sol owed ordinary care and could be liable for failing to take reasonable precautions (barriers, signage, speed bumps) | The event was not foreseeable; public policy and lack of codes bar imposing such a duty | Owner/occupiers owe the ordinary duty of care unless a court articulates specific, non-foreseeability policy reasons to limit or eliminate that duty |
| Whether foreseeability is a proper basis to determine existence/scope of duty | Foreseeability supports finding duty in these facts | Foreseeability argues no duty because remote/improbable risk | Foreseeability is not to be used to decide duty; it is relevant to breach and legal-cause questions for the jury |
| Whether judges may weigh evidence of risk-prevention norms or safety expert proof to deny duty | Plaintiffs: evidence shows reasonable precautions exist and were not taken | Defendants: absence of codes/industry norms and statistical rarity justify no duty | Courts must not weigh such evidence as a policy basis to deny duty; such factual weighing belongs to the jury in breach/legal-cause analysis |
| Whether courts can grant summary judgment based on foreseeability to eliminate duty | Plaintiffs: summary judgment inappropriate where factual disputes exist | Defendants: foreseeability as matter of law supports summary judgment | Courts may grant judgment as a matter of law only by concluding no reasonable jury could find breach or legal cause; judges cannot use foreseeability to negate duty at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Edward C. v. City of Albuquerque, 148 N.M. 646, 241 P.3d 1086 (N.M. 2010) (adopted Restatement (Third) guidance but created some confusion about foreseeability’s limited role)
- Torres v. State, 119 N.M. 609, 894 P.2d 386 (N.M. 1995) (foreseeability and breach are questions for the factfinder)
- Ford v. Board of County Commissioners, 118 N.M. 134, 879 P.2d 766 (N.M. 1994) (landowner owes ordinary care considering likelihood and severity of harm and burden of precautions)
- Chavez v. Desert Eagle Distributing Co., 141 N.M. 116, 151 P.3d 77 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (illustrative of a foreseeability-driven duty analysis criticized by the Restatement)
- Gabaldon v. Erisa Mortgage Co., 124 N.M. 296, 949 P.2d 1193 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997) (endorsed a policy-driven approach to recognize or extend duties)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 856 N.E.2d 1048 (Ill. 2006) (refused to conflate foreseeability duty questions with breach; found owner/occupier owes ordinary care in vehicle-building collisions)