Reichert v. Atler
117 N.M. 623, 875 P.2d 379 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The negligent failure of a business owner or operator to protect patrons from foreseeable harm should be compared to the conduct of a third-party assailant, even if intentional, under comparative fault principles, limiting the owner's liability to their proportionate fault rather than imposing joint and several liability.
Facts:
- In the evening of December 20, 1985, Alfredo Castillo stopped at the A-Mi-Gusto Lounge to cash his paycheck.
- Shortly after entering, Castillo was engaged in an argument by Pablo Ochoa, a clearly intoxicated patron who had been drinking at the lounge since mid-afternoon.
- Bar employee Deborah Espinosa, the Atlers’ daughter, observed Castillo and Ochoa argue for almost five minutes but did not attempt to stop the fight nor summon the police.
- Castillo went into an office with Espinosa to cash his paycheck and told her he recently had been in a fistfight with Ochoa, feared Ochoa would act violently, knew Ochoa carried a gun, and had heard Ochoa killed someone in another state.
- When Castillo returned from the office, the argument with Ochoa resumed and escalated.
- Ochoa pulled out a pistol, shot Castillo six times, and fled from the bar, never being apprehended.
- Castillo died en route to the hospital; the A-Mi-Gusto Lounge had a reputation as dangerous and a history of numerous shootings, stabbings, and assaults, but did not employ professional security personnel at the time of the shooting.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Reichert, as personal representative of Alfredo Castillo's estate, brought a wrongful-death action against Tony and Josie Atler, doing business as the A-Mi-Gusto Lounge, in trial court.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court adjudged the Atlers liable for the entire damages, finding their negligence should not be compared with Ochoa's conduct, but also made an alternative finding that if comparison were required, Atlers were one-third at fault and Ochoa two-thirds at fault.
- The Atlers appealed the trial court's judgment to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, as appellants.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the Atlers’ negligence must be compared to the assailant’s conduct and that the Atlers’ liability should be limited to their percentage of the fault.
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico issued a writ of certiorari to determine whether the negligent failure of a business owner to protect patrons from foreseeable harm should be compared to the actions of the perpetrator of that harm and, if so, whether the owner should be held liable only for proportionate fault.
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 negligent failure of a business owner to protect patrons from foreseeable harm get compared to the intentional conduct of a third-party assailant under comparative fault principles, thereby limiting the owner's liability to their proportionate fault?
Opinions:
Majority - Ransom, Justice
Yes, the negligent failure of a business owner to protect patrons from foreseeable harm should be compared to the intentional conduct of a third-party assailant under comparative fault principles, and the owner is liable only for their proportionate fault. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, agreeing that the negligence of a bar owner may be compared to the conduct of a third party, even when that conduct is intentional. The Court reasoned that the nature of the third party's conduct (intentional, negligent, or otherwise) is not determinative when applying comparative fault principles in situations where the duty breached is to protect patrons from foreseeable harm. Relying on Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (Cal. Ct.App. 1991) and Blazovic v. Andrich (N.J. 1991), the Court rejected the argument that comparative fault principles do not apply when one of the parties acted intentionally, stating there is no principled basis to transfer the intentional actor’s full responsibility to a negligent tortfeasor when the injured party is seeking to hold the negligent party responsible. The Court emphasized that New Mexico's comparative-fault principles apply unless inconsistent with public policy, and found no sound public policy basis to abrogate the legislature's determination that comparative fault should apply. This approach is consistent with the Court's adoption of comparative fault in Scott v. Rizzo (1981) and the rejection of joint and several liability in comparative fault cases in Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc. (1982), which established that each tortfeasor should be responsible only for their percentage of the harm. The Court acknowledged the importance of a business owner's duty to protect patrons but held that fully liable for damages is inappropriate, instead suggesting a jury instruction that allows comparison of fault while emphasizing the owner’s duty to protect arises from foreseeability and increases with the risk of danger.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of comparative fault in New Mexico, extending its reach to premises liability cases where a negligent defendant's fault is juxtaposed against an intentional third-party tortfeasor. It solidifies the state's move away from joint and several liability, reinforcing the principle that each party is responsible only for their proportionate share of fault, even when severe intentional misconduct is involved. This ruling may impact future cases by placing a greater burden on plaintiffs to prove the precise percentage of a premises owner's fault, rather than holding them fully responsible for an injury facilitated by their negligence. The proposed jury instruction provides a framework for courts to guide juries in balancing the owner's duty against the third party's actions, ensuring the owner's liability is not automatically diminished by the egregiousness of the intentional act.
