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:
See UJI 13โ1646 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.
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, 363โ64 (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.
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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."