Hicks v. State
88 N.M. 588, 544 P.2d 1153 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law doctrine of sovereign immunity, being a judicial creation, is judicially abolished in tort actions, and it may no longer be interposed as a defense by the State or its political subdivisions.
Facts:
- The New Mexico State Highway Department constructed and maintained a narrow bridge near Fort Sumner.
- On December 26, 1972, a school bus collided with a cattle truck on this bridge.
- Ron E. Hicks's wife and minor daughter were killed as a result of the collision.
- Hicks alleged that the deaths were caused by the negligence of the State Highway Department in its construction and maintenance of the bridge.
Procedural Posture:
- Ron E. Hicks filed a wrongful death action against the State of New Mexico in the Santa Fe County District Court, a trial court of first instance.
- The State filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the common law defense of sovereign immunity.
- The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss the action.
- Hicks, as appellant, appealed the dismissal 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 the judicially-created common law doctrine of sovereign immunity bar a tort action for wrongful death against the State of New Mexico?
Opinions:
Majority - Montoya, Justice
No. The common law doctrine of sovereign immunity no longer bars a tort action against the State. The doctrine is a judicial creation, not a statutory one, and therefore it can be abrogated by the judiciary. The original justification for the doctrine—the feudalistic concept that 'the sovereign can do no wrong'—is archaic and has no place in modern jurisprudence. It is more just to distribute the financial burden of governmental negligence among the populace, which benefits from government activities, than to force an injured individual to bear the entire loss. Merely because a court-made rule has existed for a long time does not render it immune from judicial revision when it becomes obsolete and perpetuates injustice. All prior cases holding that only the legislature can modify sovereign immunity are expressly overruled.
Concurring - Oman, Chief Justice
While concurring with the order to apply the ruling prospectively, this opinion disagrees with the majority's decision to abolish sovereign immunity. This court has repeatedly declared that any change to the doctrine should be accomplished by the legislature, not the judiciary. The legislature and the people of New Mexico had a right to rely on these consistent pronouncements. However, given that the majority has chosen to abolish the doctrine, applying the change prospectively is the correct course of action to give the legislature a fair opportunity to respond.
Dissenting - Montoya, Justice
This dissent is from the court's subsequent order on rehearing, which delayed the effective date of the majority's ruling. No, the application of the ruling should not be delayed. The court's initial decision for 'modified prospectivity' would have applied the ruling to the case at bar and other pending actions, which is the just result. To deprive the very litigant whose efforts led to the abolishment of this unjust doctrine of the ability to litigate his claim is 'manifestly unfair.' The specter of bankrupting the state is speculative and should not outweigh the objective of compensating an aggrieved party for injuries caused by the state's negligence.
Dissenting - Sosa, Justice
This dissent is also from the order on rehearing delaying the ruling's effect. No, the ruling should not be made purely prospective. To abolish sovereign immunity because it created injustice, only to then create a new injustice by denying a remedy to the very parties who brought the issue before the court, is harsh and unjust. The decision should have been made applicable to the present case and all other cases that were already filed in reliance on this court's previous signals that the doctrine's demise was imminent.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally alters the landscape of governmental liability in New Mexico by judicially abolishing the long-standing doctrine of sovereign immunity. The case asserts the judiciary's power to adapt the common law to modern social conditions, overruling a significant line of precedent that deferred such changes to the legislature. By removing the state's absolute shield from tort liability, the ruling exposed all levels of government to lawsuits for negligence, prompting the need for liability insurance and risk management. This decision forced the legislature to address governmental tort liability, leading to statutory schemes that define the scope and limits of the state's exposure to such claims.
