Rodriguez v. Del Sol Shopping Center Associates, L.P.
2014 NMSC 014, 6 N.M. 50 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Foreseeability is not a factor for courts to consider when determining the existence of a duty, or when deciding to limit or eliminate an existing duty in a particular class of cases; instead, courts must articulate specific policy reasons, unrelated to foreseeability, for such determinations.
Facts:
- A truck crashed through the front glass of the Concentra Medical Clinic.
- The Concentra Medical Clinic is located in the Del Sol Shopping Center in Santa Fe.
- The crash resulted in the deaths of three people and serious injuries to several others.
- Plaintiffs (James Rodriguez, et al., and Maria C. Bustamante, et al.) alleged that Del Sol’s owners and operators negligently contributed to the accident.
- Plaintiffs claimed Del Sol failed to adequately post signage, install speed bumps, erect barriers to protect buildings, employees, and visitors from errant vehicles, or use other traffic control methods in the parking lot.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (James Rodriguez, et al., and Maria C. Bustamante, et al.) sued Del Sol Shopping Center Associates, L.P., BGK Properties, Inc., and other associated entities (Defendants) in district court, alleging negligence.
- The district courts granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, finding the accident 'was not foreseeable' as a matter of law and thus no duty existed, relying on Romero v. Giant Stop-N-Go of N.M., Inc.
- Plaintiffs appealed the district courts' summary judgment rulings.
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals consolidated the two cases.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district courts' rulings, concluding that Defendants had no duty to protect plaintiffs inside the building from criminally reckless drivers, but based its decision on a policy-driven duty analysis, citing Restatement (Third) of Torts and Edward C. v. City of Albuquerque.
- Plaintiffs-Petitioners sought certiorari from the New Mexico Supreme Court.
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 foreseeability play a role in a court's legal determination of the existence, limitation, or elimination of a duty of care in negligence cases, or is it exclusively a factor for the jury in determining breach of duty and legal causation?
Opinions:
Majority - Chávez, Justice
No, foreseeability does not play a role in a court's legal determination of the existence, limitation, or elimination of a duty of care; rather, it is exclusively a factor for the jury in determining breach of duty and legal causation. Justice Chávez, writing for the majority, clarified that foreseeability is a fact-intensive inquiry relevant only to breach of duty and legal cause, which are questions for a jury. Courts should not use foreseeability to determine the scope or existence of a duty because it is not susceptible to categorical analysis and varies with specific facts. The Court reaffirmed its adoption of Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 7 comment j (2010), which requires courts to articulate specific, policy-based reasons, unrelated to foreseeability, if they decide that a defendant does not have a duty or that an existing duty should be limited. The Court criticized the Court of Appeals' analysis as predominantly foreseeability-driven and effectively a no-breach-of-duty analysis, rather than a policy-driven duty analysis. The Court rejected the notion that compliance with codes and regulations is conclusive evidence of ordinary care or that requiring ordinary care makes businesses 'absolute insurers.' Weighing evidence, such as expert affidavits or photographs of other businesses, is the jury's role, not the court's when determining duty. The Court explicitly overruled prior cases insofar as they conflicted with this clarification of the appropriate duty analysis.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the framework for duty analysis in New Mexico, firmly separating the legal determination of duty (a question for the court) from the factual determinations of breach and causation (questions for the jury). By explicitly rejecting foreseeability as a factor in duty determinations, the Court shifts the burden onto defendants to present concrete, generalized policy reasons—rather than fact-specific arguments about likelihood—to limit or negate a duty of care. This approach will likely lead to fewer summary judgments based on 'no duty' and empower juries to consider a broader range of evidence regarding the reasonableness of conduct and causation in premises liability and similar negligence cases. It reinforces the importance of the jury's role in tort law and aligns New Mexico with the modern trend espoused by the Restatement (Third) of Torts.
