Medina v. Graham's Cowboys, Inc.
113 N.M. 471, 827 P.2d 859 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer found liable for negligently hiring an individual is fully liable for damages caused by that employee's intentional tort, provided the tort was a reasonably foreseeable result of the negligent hiring and causally connected to the employment relationship, even in jurisdictions that have limited joint and several liability for concurrent negligent tortfeasors.
Facts:
- Steven Trujillo assaulted C.K. “Rocky” Medina in the parking lot of Graham’s Cowboys, Inc. (Cowboys).
- Trujillo was employed by Cowboys as a doorman, with duties that included assisting in maintaining peace and order and using force if necessary.
- Trujillo had a history of being involved in several fights at Cowboys and elsewhere, both as a patron and an employee.
- Cowboys knew or should have known about Trujillo’s history of violence and his unsuitability for the doorman position, given the foreseeable risk he posed to patrons.
- On the night of the assault, Trujillo was not actively working but was present on the Cowboys' premises at the request of a Cowboys employee, waiting to see if he would be needed for work.
- Trujillo encountered Medina while heading towards the front door of the bar, although the assault occurred in the parking lot.
Procedural Posture:
- C.K. “Rocky” Medina filed a personal injury complaint against Steven Trujillo and Graham’s Cowboys, Inc. (Cowboys) in district court.
- Medina alleged three theories of liability against Cowboys: respondeat superior, negligent hiring and supervision, and premises liability.
- After a non-jury trial, the district court rejected the respondeat superior claim but held Cowboys liable under the negligent hiring and premises liability theories.
- Cowboys appealed the district court's judgment to the Court of Appeals 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 an employer, found negligent in hiring an employee who commits an intentional tort, remain fully liable for the resulting damages, or should the employer's fault be comparatively apportioned with the intentional tortfeasor's fault, even in a jurisdiction that has abolished joint and several liability for concurrent negligent tortfeasors?
Opinions:
Majority - HARTZ, Judge
No, an employer found negligent in hiring an employee who commits an intentional tort remains fully liable for the resulting damages. The court affirmed the district court’s finding that Cowboys was negligent in hiring and training Trujillo, which was the proximate cause of Medina's injuries. Cowboys did not challenge the findings that Trujillo was unfit and that Cowboys knew or should have known of his unsuitability, or that the attack was foreseeable. The court rejected Cowboys' argument that Trujillo not being on duty negated duty or proximate cause, finding sufficient evidence that Trujillo was on the premises at Cowboys’ request to be available for work. Regarding comparative fault, the court noted that New Mexico abolished joint and several liability for negligent tortfeasors in Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., but this case presented the novel issue of how to treat a negligent tortfeasor (the employer) when a concurrent tortfeasor (the employee) committed an intentional tort. The relevant statute (§ 41-3A-1(C)(1)) preserved joint and several liability for intentional tortfeasors but did not explicitly address the liability of a negligent co-tortfeasor. The court looked to the principles underlying vicarious liability (respondeat superior) for guidance. Although traditional respondeat superior (where the tort is within the scope of employment) did not apply here, the court found it a natural extension of the doctrine to hold a negligently hiring employer vicariously liable for the employee's intentional tort, especially when the tort was a reasonably foreseeable result of the negligent hiring and causally connected to the employment. Justifications for respondeat superior, such as cost distribution, risk avoidance, and enterprise liability, apply with even greater force when the employer itself was negligent in hiring. The court cited Kansas State Bank & Trust Co. v. Specialized Transp. Servs., Inc., which held that negligent tortfeasors should not reduce their fault by the intentional fault of another they had a duty to prevent. Therefore, Cowboys was fully liable for the damages. Additionally, the court found substantial evidence to support the damage award, specifically Dr. Seelinger's testimony and Medina’s own testimony about his continuing symptoms.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of comparative fault principles in New Mexico, particularly when an employer's negligence in hiring leads to an employee's intentional tort. By extending the principles of vicarious liability beyond the traditional 'scope of employment' for a negligent hiring claim, the court ensures that employers who breach their duty to hire suitable personnel cannot escape full responsibility by attempting to apportion fault with the intentional wrongdoer they negligently hired. This approach reinforces the employer's duty to protect the public from foreseeable harm caused by their employees, even if the employee's act is an intentional tort not directly in furtherance of the employer's business. It prevents a negligent employer from benefiting from the abolition of joint and several liability among merely negligent co-tortfeasors when the co-tortfeasor is an intentional actor whose actions were foreseeable due to the employer's negligence.
