Rivera v. New Mexico Highway & Transportation Department
855 P.2d 136, 115 N.M. 562 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, governmental immunity is not waived for injuries caused by a public employee's horseplay, as such acts generally do not fall within the 'scope of duties' unless they serve the employer's interest or are explicitly tolerated as part of the work environment.
Facts:
- Plaintiff worked as a laborer for a construction company engaged in resurfacing a highway.
- The Defendant, New Mexico Highway and Transportation Department, employed a supervisor for the highway project.
- During a lull in the work due to the temporary unavailability of resurfacing material, Defendant’s employee (the supervisor) threw a container of water on Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff reacted to the water by either jumping out of the way or grabbing his own container of water to retaliate.
- Plaintiff ran into the roadway.
- Plaintiff was subsequently struck by an oncoming vehicle and injured.
- Defendant had a strict policy prohibiting horseplay, which its employee violated by throwing the water.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued the New Mexico Highway and Transportation Department (Defendant) in trial court.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, ruling that Defendant’s employee’s act was not within the scope of his duties, and therefore, immunity was not waived.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's summary 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 a public employee's act of horseplay, such as throwing water on another worker, fall within the 'scope of duties' as defined by the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, thereby waiving governmental immunity for resulting injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Pickard, Judge
No, a public employee's act of horseplay, such as throwing water on another worker, does not fall within the 'scope of duties' as defined by the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, and therefore, governmental immunity is not waived. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. The Tort Claims Act defines 'scope of duties' as performing any duties 'requested, required or authorized to perform by the governmental entity.' The court looked to common-law 'course and scope of employment' principles, which generally hold that an employer is not liable for an employee's acts of mischief or horseplay when those acts are not incidental to the employer’s business, are not done to further the employer’s interest, and arise entirely from the employee’s personal motives. The act of throwing water on Plaintiff was a purely personal prank, not undertaken to further the Defendant's highway maintenance interests. The court distinguished this case from situations where assaults or negligent acts were committed while attempting to further the employer's business, even if done improperly. Furthermore, the court clarified that the rationale for allowing workers' compensation benefits for horseplay-related injuries, which considers workplace tensions, does not apply to general tort claims and the waiver of governmental immunity.
Concurring - Bivins, Judge
I concur with the majority opinion.
Concurring - Hartz, Judge
I concur with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the narrow interpretation of 'scope of duties' under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, particularly concerning employee horseplay. It emphasizes that for governmental immunity to be waived, an employee's actions must genuinely further the employer's interests, distinguishing such acts from purely personal mischief. The decision also highlights a critical distinction between the 'scope of duties' in tort claims and the 'course of employment' in workers' compensation, underscoring that different policy considerations drive these areas of law. This precedent strengthens governmental immunity in situations where public employees engage in unauthorized, non-work-related conduct.
