*1 Hines, an issue fore arises. State As to the exempt and
validity of classifications
non-exempt employees personnel under a ours, generally, see Broadrick such Oklahoma, supra; United Public Work- Mitchell, supra;
ers v. v. State Johnson Civil Service Dept.,
W.2d 747 United Federal Workers Mitchell, D.C., F.Supp.
of America v. dissolving order the alternative writ prohibition should be affirmed. MONTOYA, JJ.,
STEPHENSON GALVAN, Petitioner,
Robert G. ALBUQUERQUE, Municipality
CITY OF duly Incorporated under the laws Mexico, Gregory Avila, State of New F. Respondents.
No. 10221.
Supreme Court of New Mexico.
Feb. Berry, Albuquerque,
Marchiondo & petitioner. Robb,
Rodey,
Sloan,
Dickason,
Akin &
Ritchie,
Hewes, Al-
W.
James
Jonathan
respondents.
*2
employees,
their
rather
subdivisions or
OPINION
merely negligent operation
than
motor
STEPHENSON,
Justice.
pur-
vehicles. The statute authorizes the
per-
brought suit for
(Galvan)
Petitioner
brought di-
chase
insurance. Suits are
of.
suf-
injuries alleged to have
sonal
rectly against
political sub-
the state or its
operation
negligent
a
fered as
result of
judgment
divisions but no
is to “run
by
of Al-
motor
a
vehicle owned
against”
in-
such defendants unless there is
operated by its em-
buquerque
(City)
must,
surance
plaintiff
to cover it. The
ployee, Avila. Mr.
proceeded
Galvan
demand,
waive the amount of
der
5-6-18 to
judgment in
coverage.
excess of the
a defendant
naming the
The two acts are
The
irreconcilable.
provided by
5-6-20.
§
application
later statute is broader in its
The
to dismiss on
moved
ques-
and more liberal in its terms. The
ground that it
immune from suit under
was
tion
re-
is whether
latter
trial
64-25-8 and N.M.S.A.1953. The
pealed
by implication,
former
mag-
court dismissed on that basis with the
whether,
being special
the former
and the
21—1—
required
54(b),
ic words
by
(§
Rule
general,
latter
the former is
be consid-
to
1(54) (b),
included in
N.M.S.A.1953),
exception
ered an
latter as
to the
held
judgment.
thereupon appealed.
Galvan
Appeals.
Court of
Appeals adopted
City’s
The Court of
counsel,
gracefully
Mr.
rather
Galvan’s
theory and, by
a
af-
memorandum
accuracy,
that
and with
states
considerable
firmed this
com-
a consolidated
be-
history
inter-relationship
“the
panion (Sanchez
al.,
v. Manfredi et
since
er-
tween the two acts reveals a somewhat
on the
Al-
settled)
basis of Saiz
v.
through
ratic
course
the New
(Ct.
82 N.M.
passed in 1959. negligent It relates to all ef- perpetuate the unfortunate or. broaden torts committed the state or its fects of court-created Corporation Public naturally inclines us toward Agency Public later, less giving effect to the broader and Liability Where Insurance Is Carried.'” statute, if accom- restrictive this can be (1959) Ch. 333 Laws of N.M. 1021. plished doing without violence to act, appearing The first section of the precedents statutory construction. on 5-6-18, the statute as states: § *3 * * * of
By reason of the existence purpose of this act shall “The immunity, in court-created recovery of be to for means statutes, construing these New death, or damages personal injury grappled of and courts have been mindful property damage, em- resulting from the waive they of with the whether ployer’s employee’s negligence, which They sovereign immunity. They do not. employment during occur the course of represent attempts district, legislative to circumvent state, county, city, school harsh, and unconscionable and avoid the district, institution, public agency state unjust stemming results from officers, depu- public corporation, its pro completely already which ties, assistants, agents employees.” and negli against tects the state suits from its Garcia, “that pointed out in we As acts, compensation for by providing gent is (1959) Laws N.M. 333 of 1021] [Ch. any injured by the And if those state. inconsistent, entirety, with virtually in its resulted, certainly such waiver has it * * 9, believe 64-25-8 and *.” We §§ permits situ minimal. Neither statute Legislature the intent of the obvious. po arise in the or its ation to which state 22, as hold that real litical could suffer subdivisions so in and is so broad its terms lim any judgment liability since has to be explicit clear and in as to show its words ited to the subject, was intended to cover the whole therefore, displace prior statute and the issues been formulated As 9, These 64-25-8 (§§ N.M.S.A.1953). here, solely ques we are concerned awith the state clearly statutes suits allow 5- statutory tion of Did construction. negli in all subdivisions 22, N.M.S.A.1953, amended, re 6-18 to liability insur gence the extent cases to of 9, peal by implication 64-25-8 and N.M. City Albuquerque is over Saiz v. ance. precept 5.A.1953? abide ruled. by implication “[rjepeals not favored are
and are not
resorted to unless
Appeals
upholding
in
erred
Court
give
effect to an obvious
intent.
City
dismissal
district court’s
Cruces,
Buresh v.
of Las
This
party
Albuquerque as a
defendant.
Al
(1969).”
513
Saiz v.
court of
case is remanded to the district
buquerque, supra,
238 Rhodes, applied Appeals (1944); N.M. my opinion the Court of 48 Portales, construction 42 the correct rule of Waltom N.M. Blevins, (1938); result. reached the correct 367,M. State ex rel. find the answer to I am unable to Armijo, Romero, Atty., Dist. N.M. in presented our here construction 20P. Romero, 19 N. rel. v. opinion State ex majority As observed (1914), which the M. P. statutory concern in sole this one of rely. In majority addition to Saiz this, In construction. view of I fail to Albuquerque, purpose propriety derstand the or the ques precise (Ct.App.1971), concerning discussion abolishment decided, correctly tion here of the doctrine of clearly following cases in the our decisions Ap compel quash an affirmance of the Court I would certiorari as *4 writ of Lujan, peals: having improvidently granted. State v. Melendrez, ; 49 majority Therefore, (1966) feel I dis- otherwise. Rader sent.