Roderick v. Lake
108 N.M. 696, 778 P.2d 443 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner or custodian of livestock is liable for negligence per se if they negligently permit their animals to run at large on a fenced public highway, and when independent, concurrent tortfeasors cause an indivisible injury, the burden of proving apportionment of fault shifts to the defendants if the plaintiff cannot establish specific causation.
Facts:
- On December 24, 1985, at approximately 6:00 p.m., while it was dark, the plaintiff was driving west on County Road 6700 in San Juan County.
- Two dark-colored thoroughbred horses darted onto the highway in front of the plaintiff's car, causing him to crash and sustain serious injuries.
- Robert W. Lake owned the land adjacent to the county road where the horses were kept.
- Edgar L. Lake, Robert's brother, kept several of his horses, including one involved in the accident, on Robert's property.
- Roland Hohenberg, an associate and trainer for Edgar, owned the other horse involved in the accident and also kept it on Robert's property.
- Edgar had brought the two horses from the racetrack around 3:30 p.m. on the day of the accident, fed them at 5:00 p.m., and then left, while Roland remained on the property.
- The horses could only escape their enclosure through a gate, which was found 'sprung open' with the latch left open after the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Robert W. Lake, Edgar L. Lake, and Roland Hohenberg in the trial court (court of first instance) to recover damages for personal injuries.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found no negligence on the part of Robert W. Lake and dismissed the complaint against him with prejudice.
- The trial court found Edgar L. Lake and Roland Hohenberg jointly and severally liable to plaintiff, predicated on both res ipsa loquitur and negligent violation of applicable statutes and an ordinance, and assessed no negligence against the plaintiff.
- Edgar L. Lake and Roland Hohenberg appealed the 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:
Did the trial court err in finding horse owners liable for negligence per se when their livestock escaped onto a public highway, and in finding a joint venture that resulted in joint and several liability, thereby failing to apportion fault individually between the concurrent tortfeasors when specific causation was difficult to prove?
Opinions:
Majority - Bivins, Chief Judge
No, the trial court did not err in finding the defendants liable for negligence per se, but it did err in finding a joint venture and consequently in failing to apportion fault individually; instead, when apportionment is difficult, the burden shifts to the defendants. The court affirmed the trial court's finding of negligence per se against Edgar L. Lake and Roland Hohenberg, citing NMSA 1978, Sections 30-8-13(A) & (B), 66-7-363(B), and San Juan County Ordinance 10, all of which proscribe negligently allowing livestock on fenced public highways. The court found all four factors for negligence per se (statute, violation, protected class, type of harm) were met, as the horses were running at large and could not have escaped without someone leaving the gate open. The court deferred to the trial court's determination of witness credibility, noting that it could reasonably infer negligence on Edgar's part for potentially leaving the gate open or on Roland's part for not observing the open gate or escaped horses. However, the court found insufficient evidence to establish a joint venture between Edgar and Roland, as key elements like joint proprietary interest, right to share in profits, and duty to share in losses were absent, making joint and several liability inappropriate under New Mexico law, which generally abolishes it for concurrent tortfeasors. Consequently, the court adopted the rule from Summers v. Tice and Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 433B, holding that when independent but concurrent tortfeasors cause an indivisible harm, and apportionment of fault is difficult to prove, the burden shifts to the defendants to prove their individual fault, rather than depriving the innocent plaintiff of redress. The case was remanded for apportionment of negligence between the defendants based on this shifted burden.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of negligence per se for livestock owners in New Mexico, affirming statutory duties to keep animals off public highways. More significantly, it adopts a crucial burden-shifting rule for apportionment of fault in complex tort cases involving multiple negligent parties where specific causation is difficult to ascertain. This ruling ensures that innocent plaintiffs are not unfairly denied recovery when wrongdoers, acting concurrently, make apportionment challenging, thereby preventing negligent defendants from escaping liability due to the intricacies of causation. It impacts future cases by placing the onus on negligent defendants to untangle their respective contributions to an indivisible harm.
