Case Title: Ulibarri v. Maestas

Citation: 395 P.2d 238, 74 N.M. 516

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1964-09-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
395 P.2d 238 (1964) 74 N.M. 516 John ULIBARRI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben MAESTAS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 7441. Supreme Court of New Mexico. September 8, 1964. Matias A. Zamora, Ernest E. Valdez, John E. Conway, Alfonso G. Sanchez, Santa Fe, for appellant. Patricio S. Sanchez, Santa Fe, for appellee. MOISE, Justice. This appeal presents for review a judgment in the amount of $500.00 entered against the defendant, chief of police, for alleged assault and battery and false imprisonment. After trial, the court made extensive findings of evidentiary and ultimate facts, only part of which we consider necessary to repeat: The court made certain conclusions of law as a basis for the judgment entered. We copy the following which are crucial in this case: The law in New Mexico concerning liability of a police officer when acting in his official capacity is found in Cave v. Cooley, 48 N.M. 478, 152 P.2d 886. That case clearly adopts what it describes as the "majority holding" as announced in Garske v. United States (C.A.8, 1924) 1 F.2d 620, in the following language: Also, the following was quoted therein from Ryan v. Conover, 59 Ohio App. 361, 18 N.E.2d 277, 279: The case has been cited and followed in Cherry v. Williams, 63 N.M. 244, 316 P.2d 880, and in State v. Barreras, 64 N.M. 300, 328 P.2d 74. Under the facts as found by the court, none of which are directly attacked here, we cannot say that the conclusions reached are not supported. This is true even though the question of probable cause is a question of law, subject to review on appeal. Meraz v. Valencia, 28 N.M. 174, 210 P. 225. Viewing the situation as the trial court did, as detailed in the findings of fact, the conclusion of no probable cause cannot be disturbed by us. Defendant argues as his second point that the proof does not support a finding of any damage suffered by plaintiff, and that there is no basis in the evidence for the $500.00 awarded. His main reliance is on this court's holding in Lozano v. Encinias, 29 N.M. 82, 218 P. 344, where plaintiff was denied recovery. In that case, plaintiff had demurred to the answer and, upon his demurrer being overruled, failed to introduce any evidence touching on any damages allegedly suffered by him. Having failed to establish any damages in line with the burden of proof which he carried, this court concluded that the judgment entered against defendant was proper. In the instant case, there is proof of "pushing," "dragging," "hitting of plaintiff's head on the cell bars or walls," resultant pain, together with subsequent medical examinations, and similar items. The court found the damages to amount to $500.00 as compensation for "embarrassment, pain and discomfort, and for the expense of medical care and treatment directly resulting from the acts of the defendant." Placing a money value on such items is admittedly *241 difficult, and there is no fixed standard for measuring pain, suffering and similar elements of damages. Massey v. Beacon Supply Co., 70 N.M. 149, 371 P.2d 798; Mathis v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 61 N.M. 330, 300 P.2d 482. Nevertheless, where the right to damages has been established, uncertainty as to the amount does not preclude the right to the same. Jackson v. Goad, 73 N.M. 19, 385 P.2d 279. In the instant case the court found injury, pain and suffering and some expenses. No unreasonableness or excessiveness being demonstrated, the attack made under defendant's second point is without merit. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and CARMODY, J., concur.