DeMatteo v. Simon

35 Citing cases

  1. Walker v. Gregory J. Spina, Valley Express, Inc.

    No. CIV 17-0991 JB\SCY (D.N.M. Dec. 11, 2018)   Cited 4 times
    Concluding that a police report was admissible under rules 803 and 801(d)

    While the Supreme Court of New Mexico has not addressed punitive damages arising from automobile accidents, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico has upheld punitive damages awards when drivers used alcohol or drugs, drove while intoxicated and suffering from an extreme lack of sleep, and drove erratically or far beyond the speed limit. See DeMatteo v. Simon, 1991-NMCA-027, 812 P.2d 361; Svejcara v. Whitman, 1971-NMCA-093, 487 P.2d 167; Sanchez v. Wiley, 1997-NMCA-105, 946 P.2d 650. In Svejcara v. Whitman, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico upheld a jury's punitive damages award where:

  2. Amparan v. Demir

    234 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (D.N.M. 2017)   Cited 5 times

    See UJI 13โ€“1646 NMRA. Lake Powell states the element of entrustment is critical, and Plaintiffs have not shown any entrustment to the person who allegedly caused the harm to Plaintiffs: Mr. Demir. See DeMatteo v. Simon , 1991-NMCA-027, ยถ 6, 112 N.M. 112, 812 P.2d 361. Lake Powell maintains that Mr. Demir was not authorized to drive the Mustang, and in fact the undisputed facts show Lake Powell authorized only Mr. Karadeniz and Mr. Tacir to drive, as evidenced by the rental agreement and additional driver form. Second, Lake Powell argues Plaintiffs cannot establish that Lake Powell knew or should have known Mr. Demir was likely to use the vehicle in a manner that would create unreasonable risk of harm to others.

  3. Amparan v. Lake Powell Car Rental Cos.

    882 F.3d 943 (10th Cir. 2018)   Cited 52 times
    Finding a loss of consortium claim also fails when the plaintiff did not advance sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case for the underlying negligent entrustment claim

    Each time, the New Mexico Court of Appeals equated whether the defendant knew or should have known that the third party was likely to use the vehicle in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others to whether the defendant knew or should have known that the third party was an "incompetent driver." DeMatteo v. Simon , 112 N.M. 112, 812 P.2d 361, 363โ€“64 (Ct. App. 1991) ; Spencer v. Gamboa , 102 N.M. 692, 699 P.2d 623, 624 (Ct. App. 1985) ; see McCarson v. Foreman , 102 N.M. 151, 692 P.2d 537, 541 (Ct. App. 1984) (requiring evidence that entrustor knew or should have known that entrustee "was an incompetent or unfit driver"). In considering whether an entrustor knew or should have known that an entrustee was an incompetent driver, the New Mexico Court of Appeals has considered what aspects of the entrustee's driving record, faculties to drive at the moment of entrustment, and behavioral characteristics potentially impacting the entrustee's future capacity to operate a motor vehicle were known to or available to the entrustor.

  4. Prince v. City of Deming

    No. CIV 18-0899 JB\GBW (D.N.M. Apr. 10, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    While the Supreme Court of New Mexico has not addressed punitive damages arising from automobile accidents, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico has upheld punitive damages awards when drivers used alcohol or drugs, drove while intoxicated and suffering from an extreme lack of sleep, and drove erratically or far beyond the speed limit. See DeMatteo v. Simon, 1991-NMCA-027, 812 P.2d 361; Svejcara v. Whitman, 1971-NMCA-093, 487 P.2d 167; Sanchez v. Wiley, 1997-NMCA-105, 946 P.2d 650. In Svejcara v. Whitman, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico upheld a jury's punitive damages award where:

  5. Nowell v. Medtronic Inc.

    372 F. Supp. 3d 1166 (D.N.M. 2019)   Cited 49 times
    In Nowell, the Court explained that plaintiff's claims for strict liability and negligence were barred because her pleading revealed that she both knew of her injury and of its cause seven years before she filed her complaint.

    While the Supreme Court of New Mexico has not addressed punitive damages arising from automobile accidents, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico has upheld punitive damages awards when drivers used alcohol or drugs, drove while intoxicated and suffering from an extreme lack of sleep, and drove erratically or far beyond the speed limit. See DeMatteo v. Simon, 1991-NMCA-027, 112 N.M. 112, 812 P.2d 361 ; Svejcara v. Whitman, 1971-NMCA-093, 82 N.M. 739, 487 P.2d 167 ; Sanchez v. Wiley, 1997-NMCA-105, 124 N.M. 47, 946 P.2d 650. In Svejcara v. Whitman, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico upheld a jury's punitive damages award:

  6. Bhasker v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co.

    361 F. Supp. 3d 1045 (D.N.M. 2019)   Cited 25 times
    Discussing policy rationale for gap theory UIM coverage

    While the Supreme Court of New Mexico has not addressed punitive damages arising from automobile accidents, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico has upheld punitive damages awards when drivers used alcohol or drugs, drove while intoxicated and suffering from an extreme lack of sleep, and drove erratically or far beyond the speed limit. See DeMatteo v. Simon, 1991-NMCA-027, 112 N.M. 112, 812 P.2d 361 ; Svejcara v. Whitman, 1971-NMCA-093, 82 N.M. 739, 487 P.2d 167 ; Sanchez v. Wiley, 1997-NMCA-105, 124 N.M. 47, 946 P.2d 650. In Svejcara v. Whitman, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico upheld a jury's punitive damages award where:

  7. Morris v. Giant Four Corners, Inc.

    498 P.3d 238 (N.M. 2021)   Cited 12 times
    Observing that โ€œNew Mexico has adopted the general definition of negligent entrustment [of chattel] from the Restatement (Second) of Tortsโ€ and that, although โ€œthe Restatement is merely persuasive authority, โ€ it is โ€œentitled to great weightโ€

    However, no New Mexico cases have applied the doctrine of negligent entrustment of chattel, as described by the Restatement, outside of the context of the negligent entrustment of automobiles.See Armenta , 2015-NMCA-092, ยถ 12, 356 P.3d 17 ; Sanchez , 1997-NMCA-068, ยถยถ 11-12, 28, 123 N.M. 537, 943 P.2d 571 ; McCarson , 1984-NMCA-129, ยถยถ 10-11, 13, 102 N.M. 151, 692 P.2d 537 ; DeMatteo v. Simon , 1991-NMCA-027, ยถยถ 5-6, 112 N.M. 112, 812 P.2d 361 ; Hermosillo , 2000-NMCA-096, ยถ 20, 129 N.M. 721, 13 P.3d 79 ; see also UJI 13-1646 NMRA use cmt. (noting that the instruction may apply to chattels other than automobiles), committee cmt. (noting that negligent entrustment of chattel claims have been recognized in the context of automobiles but not real property). When recognizing the claims for the negligent entrustment of automobiles and the duty to refrain from such entrustment, New Mexico courts have identified policy considerations that support measures to decrease driving while intoxicated.

  8. Hermosillo v. Leadingham

    129 N.M. 721 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that a plaintiff's negligent entrustment claim failed because a husband lacked ownership and control of the vehicle with which his wife hit the plaintiff's vehicle

    To establish a claim for injuries caused by the negligent entrustment of an automobile, the plaintiff must show that the defendant entrusted his automobile to another whom the defendant knew or should have known was an incompetent driver, and whose incompetence caused the plaintiff's injuries. See DeMatteo v. Simon, 112 N.M. 112, 114, 812 P.2d 361, 363 (Ct.App. 1991); Spencer v. Gamboa, 102 N.M. 692, 693, 699 P.2d 623, 624 (Ct.App. 1985). {21} In their briefs, the parties debate whether Greg was entitled to summary judgment based on the undisputed fact that Lin was the owner of the vehicle.

  9. Gillingham v. Reliable Chevrolet

    126 N.M. 30 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that "in order to impose punitive damages against an employer, its conduct must be found to be willful, reckless, or wanton, apart from the conduct of its employee"

    Such behavior may qualify as reckless or wanton conduct. See DeMatteo v. Simon, 112 N.M. 112, 114-15, 812 P.2d 361, 363-64 (Ct.App. 1991) (jury could reasonably conclude that construction company displayed an utter indifference for the safety of others when company representative testified "that he knew DeMatteo had received several traffic citations and had been involved in auto accidents"; "that had he been aware of DeMatteo's complete driving record, the construction company would not have entrusted DeMatteo with the company car"; and "that he knew how to obtain a copy of DeMatteo's driving record"). {14} We acknowledge that other inferences from the foregoing facts, plus other facts of record and inferences from them, would support a contrary verdict.

  10. Gabaldon v. Erisa Mortg. Co.

    124 N.M. 296 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 21 times
    Applying negligent entrustment theory to real estate for the first time

    Citing Restatement ยง 308, we explicitly recognized negligent entrustment claims in the context of automobiles. See McCarson v. Foreman, 102 N.M. 151, 155-56, 692 P.2d 537, 541-42 (Ct.App. 1984); DeMatteo v. Simon, 112 N.M. 112, 114, 812 P.2d 361, 363 (Ct.App. 1991). In McCarson, 102 N.M. at 155, 692 P.2d at 541, we held that "[g]eneral principles of negligence are relevant to the determination of negligent entrustment."