Govich v. North American Systems, Inc.
112 N.M. 226, 814 P.2d 94 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a comparative negligence system, a defendant who creates a peril owes a duty of care to a rescuer, and the reasonableness and foreseeability of the rescuer's actions, including attempts to rescue property, are questions of fact for the jury to determine when allocating fault, not a bar to recovery as a matter of law.
Facts:
- Daniel Govich, who is hearing impaired, was assisted by a specially trained dog.
- On November 23, 1983, Daniel and his mother, Roane Govich, returned home to find their house on fire and filled with smoke.
- Daniel's dog was trapped inside the burning house.
- Daniel made repeated entries into the house in an attempt to rescue his dog.
- Seeing her son enter the burning house, Roane Govich also entered several times in an attempt to restrain him.
- Both Daniel and Roane Govich were injured in the fire, and the dog perished.
Procedural Posture:
- Roane and Daniel Govich sued North American Systems, Inc. ('Mr. Coffee') and Ark-Les Switch Company in district court, alleging a defective coffee maker caused a fire.
- The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the Goviches' personal injury claims.
- The district court (a trial court) granted the motion, finding the Goviches' actions in entering the burning house were unreasonable as a matter of law and were the sole cause of their injuries.
- The district court dismissed the Goviches' personal injury claims, and later dismissed them from the suit entirely.
- The Goviches (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's attempt to rescue property from a peril allegedly created by a defendant constitute an independent intervening cause of their injuries that, as a matter of law, bars recovery against the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Ransom, Justice
No. A rescuer's attempt to save property does not, as a matter of law, constitute an independent intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation from the defendant's original negligence. Under New Mexico's comparative negligence regime, the rescue doctrine establishes that a person creating a peril owes an independent duty of care to a rescuer. The questions of whether the rescuer's actions were foreseeable and reasonable under the circumstances are issues of proximate cause for the jury to decide. The trial court usurped the jury's function by finding Daniel's conduct was unreasonable as a matter of law. Whether the rescue of property is foreseeable is a question for the jury, and there is no public policy reason to remove questions of negligence and proximate cause from the jury's consideration in such cases.
Analysis:
This decision adapts the common law rescue doctrine to a modern comparative negligence framework, shifting its primary function from a tool to overcome the absolute bar of contributory negligence to a mechanism for establishing duty. By holding that the foreseeability and reasonableness of a rescue are questions of fact for the jury, the court prevents judges from dismissing such cases at the summary judgment stage. The ruling significantly expands the doctrine's protection by explicitly refusing to create a rule that rescuing property is unforeseeable as a matter of law, ensuring that plaintiffs injured while attempting to save valuable or cherished property can have their claims heard by a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Govich v. North American Systems, Inc.