Case Title: Louderbough v. Heimbach

Citation: 359 P.2d 518, 68 N.M. 124

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1961-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
359 P.2d 518 (1961) 68 N.M. 124 Henry LOUDERBOUGH and Olga B. Louderbough, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Russell H. HEIMBACH, Defendant-Appellee. No. 6769. Supreme Court of New Mexico. February 17, 1961. Schall & Sceresse, Louis J. Vener, Albuquerque, for appellants. Iden & Johnson, Richard G. Cooper, Albuquerque, for appellee. COMPTON, Chief Justice. This is an action for personal injuries and property damages sustained by the plaintiffs in a collision of motor vehicles at the intersection of Carlisle and Central East being driven by the plaintiff, Olga B. Louderbough, and the defendant, Heimbach, respectively. As a first cause of action, the complaint alleges that as plaintiff, Olga B. Louderbough, was driving north on Carlisle on a green light in crossing Central East and having entered the northerly half of the intersection, the defendant negligently and illegally ran a red light, entered the intersection from the east and collided with the plaintiffs' vehicle, resulting in personal injuries to her, and for which the plaintiffs sought damages. By a second cause of action, the plaintiffs sought damages for injury to their motor vehicle, for hospital care and medical expenses, etc. By a second count of each cause of action, the plaintiffs relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur on the theory that the vehicle driven by the defendant was under his exclusive control. Issue was duly joined and, affirmatively, the defendant pleaded contributory negligence as a defense to the action. The cause was tried to a jury which found for the defendant. Judgment was entered accordingly, and the plaintiffs appeal. The appeal does not concern the questions of primary negligence, contributory negligence, proximate cause nor res ipsa loquitur. The court, however, over appellants' objection, instructed the jury on unavoidable accident, and the question is whether objections thereto were sufficient to present questions for review. It is solely to this issue we address ourselves. The defendant testified that he was driving at a speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour; that immediately prior to the collision, he had crossed "Hermosa dip" which at the time had water in it running about a foot deep; that as he approached Carlisle, he observed the traffic caution light starting to turn yellow and applied his brakes, but there was a brake failure due to the brakes having thus become submerged. The challenged instructions read: The objections interposed to the instructions are as follows: Appellants assert that the giving of the instructions constituted prejudicial error for the following reasons: Clearly, the objections failed to point out the vice in the instructions. Nor were the questions now urged for a reversal brought to the attention of the court thereby. It is well settled that to save a question for review, it must be presented to the court and a ruling invoked thereon. We must conclude that such objections to the instructions were insufficient to suggest the error now urged. It follows, therefore, that the instructions, right or wrong, cannot be reviewed for error here for the first time. This principle is well established by our own cases. Warren v. Spurck, 64 N.M. 106, 325 P.2d 284. Also see New Mexico Digest, Appeal and Error, et seq., as supplemented by 1960 accumulative pocket parts. But appellants insist that other compelling considerations require us to take notice of the claimed error. They contend *520 that the error is fundamental. We disagree; while the doctrine of fundamental error has its place in this jurisdiction, Armijo v. National Surety Corp., 58 N.M. 166, 268 P.2d 339; State v. Garcia, 19 N.M. 414, 143 P. 1012, this is not a proper case for its application. Sapp v. Atlas Building Products Co., 62 N.M. 239, 308 P.2d 213; State v. Garcia, 46 N.M. 302, 128 P.2d 459. The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered. MOISE and NOBLE, JJ., concur. CARMODY and CHAVEZ, JJ., not participating.