Archibeque v. Homrich
543 P.2d 820, 88 N.M. 527 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
It is a reversible error for a trial court to give jury instructions on legal theories or defenses, such as contributory negligence or sudden emergency, when there is no evidence in the record to support them, as doing so interjects false issues and invites the jury to engage in speculation.
Facts:
- James F. Perkins, a serviceman, was driving his 1969 Opel Kadette station wagon from Idaho to Texas to be married.
- Perkins picked up a hitchhiker, Felix J. Roberson, Jr.
- Perkins called his fiancée to inform her he might arrive earlier because Roberson had offered to help with the driving.
- A single-car accident occurred in which both Perkins and Roberson were killed instantly, with no eyewitnesses.
- At the accident scene, Roberson was found on the driver's side of the car, slumped over the steering wheel.
- Perkins was found on the passenger's side.
- The vehicle had run off the west side of the highway, traveled 274 feet on the shoulder, crossed back over the highway, and plunged into a 14-foot-deep arroyo on the east side.
- The highway at the site of the accident was straight, level, and dry.
Procedural Posture:
- The personal representative of James F. Perkins's estate sued the administrator of Felix J. Roberson, Jr.'s estate for wrongful death in a New Mexico trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the judgment to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of New Mexico for a final decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is it a reversible error for a trial court to instruct a jury on the legal theories of contributory negligence, sudden emergency, and agency when no evidence has been presented at trial to support those claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Sosa, Justice
Yes. It is a reversible error for a trial court to instruct a jury on legal theories for which there is no evidentiary support in the record. The court reasoned that giving instructions on issues unsupported by evidence or which present a false issue requires reversal. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that the passenger, Perkins, was contributorily negligent. Similarly, the instruction on 'sudden emergency' was improper because it was based on mere speculation and conjecture from an expert about what might have happened (e.g., an insect in the car, an animal on the road), not on evidence. The court also found the agency instruction improper, as it interjected a false issue and misapplied the concept in a dispute between a driver and passenger. Citing Reed v. Styron, the court affirmed that giving instructions not warranted by the evidence requires a new trial.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental principle that jury instructions must be strictly tethered to the evidence presented at trial. The decision limits the ability of trial courts to allow juries to speculate on defenses or theories that lack a factual basis in the record. It clarifies that expert testimony amounting to mere conjecture about possible causes of an accident is insufficient to support an instruction like 'sudden emergency.' This precedent serves as a crucial check on trial procedure, ensuring that verdicts are based on proven facts rather than hypothetical possibilities, thereby protecting plaintiffs from having to rebut speculative defenses.
