594 F. App'x 463
10th Cir.2014Background
- Three former inmates (Spurlock, Carrera, Carrasco) were sexually assaulted multiple times in 2007 by Officer Townes at Camino Nuevo, a privately operated New Mexico women’s detention facility. Townes pleaded guilty in state court and is incarcerated.
- Plaintiffs sued CCA, Warden Wagner, and Townes in federal court asserting § 1983 Eighth Amendment claims and state tort claims (including negligent supervision). Early rulings found Townes liable on § 1983; many state-route claims were dismissed or amended.
- At trial the jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages against Townes, found negligent supervision liability against CCA/Wagner for two plaintiffs, and reduced those plaintiffs’ awards by percentages the jury attributed to their comparative negligence (54% and 20%).
- Defendants invoked comparative-fault/reduction of damages; Plaintiffs argued New Mexico law precludes comparing an inmate-victim’s fault against an employer on negligent-supervision claims.
- The Tenth Circuit concluded the issue is novel, important, and outcome-determinative and therefore certified the core question to the New Mexico Supreme Court rather than decide it itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Mexico recognizes comparative-fault as a defense to reduce an employer’s negligent-supervision damages when an inmate is raped by a corrections officer | Medina and policy mean employer liability should not be reduced by inmate’s fault; inmate cannot be compared with employer/employee relationship | New Mexico precedent on premises-liability and comparative fault (e.g., Barth) allows apportionment; plaintiff’s fault can offset employer liability | Court declined to decide; certified the question to the New Mexico Supreme Court for authoritative resolution |
| Whether Medina v. Graham’s Cowboys mandates rejecting comparative fault in negligent-supervision/employee-intentional-tort context | Medina’s extension of respondeat superior precludes comparing victim fault with employer fault | Medina is distinguishable; it does not clearly bar comparative negligence and even noted potential application in some negligent-hiring contexts | Court held Medina does not definitively resolve the comparative-fault question and is ambiguous on this point |
| Whether Barth v. Coleman compels application of comparative-fault here | Plaintiff: Barth (bar patrons) is inapplicable given involuntary and custodial nature of incarceration; victim-consent and rape-bias concerns counsels against comparison | Defendant: Barth endorses reducing negligent-party liability by plaintiff’s fault and supports the jury’s apportionment | Court found Barth distinguishable given the unique custodial context and declined to treat it as controlling; left resolution to state court |
| Whether the certified question is outcome-determinative and suitable for state-court guidance | Plaintiffs: state law uncertainty warrants certification because result affects damages recoverable | Defendants: belied but court must follow certification standards | Court found the issue novel, outcome-determinative, implicating sensitive state policy, and therefore certified the question to the New Mexico Supreme Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Medina v. Graham's Cowboys, Inc., 827 P.2d 859 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992) (negligent-hiring/respondeat superior discussion and ambiguous on comparative fault)
- Barth v. Coleman, 878 P.2d 319 (N.M. 1994) (premises-liability context recognizing offset for plaintiff comparative fault)
- Scott v. Rizzo, 634 P.2d 1234 (N.M. 1981) (establishing comparative fault framework in New Mexico)
- Romero v. Mervyn's, 784 P.2d 992 (N.M. 1989) (discussion of respondeat superior scope and employer liability)