Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P's employer, Aldershot, was in the process of replacing a roof over its greenhouse. P assisted in the installation of the new roof as one of his job duties. While standing in a gutter on the edge of the greenhouse roof and being handed a long metal rod from another employee, P contacted a high voltage conductor, which was above and behind him, with the metal rod. This caused P to fall to the ground outside of the greenhouse. Torres suffered serious injuries, including severe electrical burns and an amputated left foot. At trial, it was stipulated that the amount of P's medical expenses was $196,808.42. P alleged that D negligently installed and maintained a high voltage power pole adjacent to the greenhouse and that D's negligence proximately caused P's contact with the power conductor. P alleged that the pole was bent and that D, at the time of installation, leaned the pole toward the greenhouse to offset the weight of the conductor. After installation, the pole shifted several feet towards the greenhouse, and the cross-arm of the pole tilted down toward the greenhouse. The pole had several cracks, running both horizontally and vertically, and appeared to be twisted. P alleged that several individuals warned D about the condition but D took no action. P also alleged spoliation of evidence during D's investigation of the incident. D moved for a directed verdict. The trial court determined that D did not have 'any intention to harm anybody' and did not act in a sufficiently willful or wanton manner to form the basis for punitive damages. The trial court granted D's motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages and P's claim of intentional spoliation of evidence. The trial court instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of independent intervening causes. D claimed that, if it had been negligent, the negligence of P, Aldershot, and Aldershot's contractors, L.E. Electric, Inc. and Beukel Greenhouse Services (Beukel), superseded D's negligence and, therefore, constituted independent intervening causes which relieved D of liability. The jury found that D had been negligent but that D's negligence had not proximately caused Ps' injuries. The Court of Appeals recognized a potential conflict between the defense of independent intervening cause and New Mexico's adoption of comparative negligence. It certified the issue 'of the continuing viability of the independent intervening cause [jury] instructions and, if viable, the circumstances in which they should be given,' as a matter of substantial public importance.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co