Torres v. El Paso Electric Co.
987 P.2d 386 (1999), 127 N.M. 729, 1999-NMSC-029 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The affirmative defense of independent intervening cause does not apply to a plaintiff's alleged comparative negligence, and the jury instruction for this defense should no longer be given in cases involving multiple acts of negligence, as it is confusing and duplicative of the proximate cause instruction.
Facts:
- Francisco Torres was employed by Aldershot of New Mexico, Inc., assisting in the replacement of a greenhouse roof on July 31, 1992.
- While standing in a gutter on the roof's edge, Torres was handed a long metal rod by another employee.
- The metal rod made contact with a high-voltage conductor owned and maintained by El Paso Electric Company (EPEC), located above and behind him.
- As a result of the electrical contact, Torres suffered severe burns and the amputation of his left foot.
- The power pole supporting the conductor, installed by EPEC in 1981, was allegedly bent, cracked, overloaded, and leaning several feet closer to the greenhouse than its original placement.
- Prior to the accident, several individuals had warned EPEC about the deteriorating condition of the pole and the conductor's dangerous proximity to the greenhouse, but EPEC took no corrective action.
- Following the accident, an EPEC representative, after conferring with counsel, had the power pole removed, cut into sections, and discarded.
Procedural Posture:
- Francisco and Sonia Torres sued El Paso Electric Company (EPEC) in New Mexico district court (trial court) for negligence, loss of consortium, intentional spoliation of evidence, and punitive damages.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the trial court granted EPEC's motion for a directed verdict on the claims for punitive damages and intentional spoliation of evidence.
- The remaining claims for negligence and loss of consortium were submitted to the jury.
- The jury returned a special verdict finding that EPEC had been negligent but that its negligence was not the proximate cause of Torres's injuries, resulting in a judgment in favor of EPEC.
- The Torreses, as appellants, appealed the judgment and the directed verdicts to the New Mexico Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of New Mexico (highest court) to address the continuing viability of the independent intervening cause instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a negligence action under New Mexico's pure comparative fault system, does a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of independent intervening cause constitute reversible error when applied to the alleged negligence of the plaintiff or other concurrent tortfeasors?
Opinions:
Majority - Serna, Justice.
Yes. A jury instruction on the affirmative defense of independent intervening cause constitutes reversible error in a comparative fault system. In cases involving multiple negligent acts, the doctrine does not apply to a plaintiff's negligence, and the jury instruction is sufficiently repetitive of the proximate cause instruction and confusing to the jury that it should no longer be given. The court reasoned that with the adoption of pure comparative negligence, which requires a jury to apportion fault, the independent intervening cause instruction unduly emphasizes the defendant's attempt to shift blame and creates an unacceptable risk that the jury will misapply the abolished doctrine of contributory negligence. Standard instructions on negligence and proximate cause are sufficient for a jury to determine and apportion fault. Furthermore, the court held that the alleged negligence of Torres and his employer was a foreseeable intervening force within the scope of the risk created by EPEC's negligence and did not break the chain of causation. The court also reversed the directed verdict on punitive damages, finding that the cumulative effect of EPEC's actions in designing, installing, and maintaining the pole could allow a reasonable jury to infer recklessness. It affirmed the directed verdict on spoliation of evidence, however, because while the tort can apply to pre-litigation conduct, Torres failed to show EPEC acted with malicious intent to disrupt his lawsuit.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Franchini, J.
This opinion concurs with the majority's holdings on independent intervening cause and intentional spoliation of evidence, but dissents from the decision to reverse the directed verdict on punitive damages. The dissent argues that punitive damages require a 'positive element of conscious wrongdoing' or conduct that is willful or wanton, which is a higher standard than mere negligence or even gross negligence. The evidence against EPEC, such as its decision to send an inspector after receiving warnings, demonstrated conduct that was at most negligent, not the kind of malicious or consciously indifferent behavior required to justify punitive damages. The dissent contends that the majority's decision unjustifiably expands the potential liabilities for companies by allowing a jury to consider punitive damages for conduct that does not rise to the required level of egregiousness.
Analysis:
This decision effectively abolishes the independent intervening cause jury instruction in New Mexico negligence cases involving multiple tortfeasors, aligning the state's tort law more closely with the principles of pure comparative fault. By removing this instruction, the court simplifies the jury's task, focusing it on the core concepts of proximate cause and apportionment of fault, rather than a separate, confusing defense that could act as a complete bar to recovery. This reinforces the policy that a negligent defendant should not escape all liability merely because another party was also negligent. The ruling also clarifies the high threshold for the tort of intentional spoliation of evidence, requiring proof of malicious intent, while offering a less severe remedy—an adverse inference instruction—for less culpable instances of evidence destruction.
Unlock the full brief for Torres v. El Paso Electric Co.