367 P.3d 850
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- In Feb. 2012 Stephan Williams ran a red light and struck Alfredo Rodriguez; both drivers were intoxicated (Williams .11 BAC; Rodriguez .076 BAC) and Rodriguez was not wearing a seat belt.
- Rodriguez suffered a subdural hematoma requiring craniotomy, eight days in hospital, and incurred $111,924.63 in medical bills; he missed three months of work.
- The hospital placed a lien; Rodriguez settled with the hospital to accept one-third of any monetary recovery as full satisfaction of its claim.
- After a bench trial the district court found Williams primarily at fault, apportioned 5% fault to Rodriguez for intoxication, excluded seat-belt nonuse from comparative-fault analysis under NMSA 1978 § 66-7-373(A), and awarded total damages of $191,864.63 reduced 5% to $182,271.40.
- Williams appealed, raising four issues: application of the unlawful-acts doctrine, exclusion of seat-belt nonuse from comparative negligence, collateral-source rule application, and whether medical damages should be limited to the amount agreed with the hospital.
Issues
| Issue | Rodriguez's Argument | Williams's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unlawful-acts doctrine bars recovery because Rodriguez was driving impaired | Recovery is proper; comparative fault can apportion impairment-related damages | Desmet and analogous doctrines bar recovery when plaintiff’s illegal act caused injury | Court: Unlawful-acts doctrine does not bar recovery here; reduce damages by plaintiff’s share of fault (5%) rather than completely bar recovery |
| Whether § 66-7-373(A) permits considering seat-belt nonuse in comparative negligence | § 66-7-373(A) bars considering seat-belt nonuse; Legislature intended to prevent apportionment based on seat-belt nonuse | The statute only abolishes negligence-per-se claims; common-law comparative fault still allows seat-belt consideration | Court: § 66-7-373(A) bars consideration of seat-belt nonuse in comparative-fault apportionment |
| Whether collateral-source rule should be inapplicable because plaintiff shares fault | Collateral-source rule applies; third-party payments that don’t seek full reimbursement benefit plaintiff | Collateral-source rule should not apply when plaintiff is a wrongdoer | Court: Declined to address in depth because Williams provided no authority; collateral-source rule principles recognized and not negated here |
| Whether medical damages must be reduced to the hospital settlement amount (one-third) | Rodriguez treated billed medical costs as recoverable; hospital lien/settlement does not cap tort recovery | Judgment should be reduced to $37,308.21 (one-third of bill) because hospital agreed to accept that amount | Court: Rejected the argument for reduction on appeal because Williams failed to cite authority in briefing; award of full billed medical charges affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Desmet v. Sublett, 225 P.2d 141 (N.M. 1950) (unlawful-acts doctrine can bar recovery when claim depends on plaintiff’s illegal act)
- Scott v. Rizzo, 634 P.2d 1234 (N.M. 1981) (adoption of comparative fault in New Mexico)
- Thomas v. Henson, 696 P.2d 1010 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984) (New Mexico appellate court considered seat-belt defense; later reversed in part by the NMSC)
- Alami v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 766 N.E.2d 574 (N.Y. 2002) (declining to apply unlawful-acts bar where defendant’s duty to all users exists regardless of plaintiff’s intoxication)
- Sunnyland Farms, Inc. v. Central N.M. Elec. Co-op, 301 P.3d 387 (N.M. 2013) (explaining collateral-source rule and policy against double recovery)