Title: Archibeque v. Homrich

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

543 P.2d 820 (1975) 88 N.M. 527 Johnnie ARCHIBEQUE, as personal representative and administrator of the Estate of James F. Perkins, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B.J. HOMRICH, Administrator of the Estate of Felix J. Roberson, Jr., Deceased, Defendant-Appellee. No. 10366. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 15, 1975. *821 Smith, Ransom & Gilstrap, Michael Fitzpatrick, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant. Farlow & Lill, Sarah M. Bradley, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee. SOSA, Justice. Plaintiff-appellant, personal representative and administrator of the estate of James F. Perkins, deceased, filed suit against the administrator of the estate of Felix J. Roberson, Jr., also deceased. The suit was for damages for wrongful death. From a jury verdict for the defendant, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court pursuant to section 16-7-14(C) (2) N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 4) certified the case to this court for final decision. Plaintiff's decedent and defendant's decedent were both killed in a one car accident. Defendant's decedent was found on the driver's side of the front seat slumped over the steering wheel and plaintiff's decedent was on the passenger's side. It is apparent that the two died instantly, since there was no indication that either had moved after the accident. Plaintiff's decedent, a 21-year-old serviceman stationed in Idaho, was driving to Texas to be married. In the afternoon of July 15, 1970, he called his fiancé to advise her of the possibility of his earlier arrival because he had picked up a hitchhiker, the defendant's decedent, who had offered to help with the driving. There were no eyewitnesses to the accident and the evidence at trial consisted of the testimony of the investigating officer and experts on accident reconstruction. The state police investigation revealed that the 1969 Opel Kadette stationwagon was headed in a southerly direction on State Road 44 when it ran off the west side of the highway. It traveled 274 feet on the shoulder, returned to the highway, crossed over the north-bound traffic lane and onto the east shoulder, and plunged into a 14-foot-deep arroyo. From the point it returned to the highway to the point it left on the east side, the car traversed an arc measuring 73 feet diagonally (the highway was only 22 feet wide at this point). The car traveled 83 feet along the east edge of the pavement before plunging into the arroyo, which was some 24 feet from the east edge of the road. The car rolled over once in the arroyo and was found facing west in an upright position. The highway was straight and level at the site of the accident, and it was dry on the day of the accident. *822 The distance from where the vehicle first left the highway to its final resting place was 430 feet. Officer Viramontes testified that based upon his past experience in investigation it was his opinion that "the driver apparently dozed off, fell asleep at the wheel, at which time the vehicle went off the right hand side of the road in a gradual manner and the tires started kicking up gravel or weeds underneath the car, which apparently woke the driver up, at which time he realized he was off the road and tried to get back on the road, and when he did he overcorrected and his car went sideways, partially sideways, across the road and down the embankment." The court instructed the jury on res ipsa loquitur, contributory negligence, sudden emergency, and agency. Upon appeal the plaintiff urges the following points for reversal: As points 1, 2, 3 and 4 deal primarily with objections to instructions as given we will deal with them all under one point. Plaintiff-appellant argued that the first jury instruction included an improper affirmative defense, and the instructions on contributory negligence and sudden emergency were improperly given because there was no evidence to support them. We have difficulty with the following jury instructions: We find that the first instruction was improper. First, the "... [defendant] affirmatively states ..." part is postured as an affirmative defense. However, it is not an affirmative defense but in effect, merely a denial and should have been stated as such. In the second jury instruction the "in part" must be deleted since the trial court only allowed one theory to go to the jury. We have reviewed the trial record and find no evidence to the effect that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Similarly, with respect *824 to jury instruction number 14, there was no evidence to the effect that a sudden emergency arose. We have held that it is error to instruct on issues which are unsupported by the evidence or which present a false issue. State v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., 76 N.M. 587, 417 P.2d 68 (1966); Terry v. Biswell, 66 N.M. 201, 345 P.2d 217 (1959). The testimony of defendant's expert, Don Evans, amounted to speculation and conjecture as to how the accident might have occurred. He stated that in accidents such as this one an insect could have been in the car; cigarette ashes could have blown into the eyes of the driver; an animal could have run out in front of the driver; the driver could have been ill; or another vehicle could have run this vehicle off the road. To base a jury instruction on speculation or conjecture is not proper, and the interjection of a false issue and the giving of instructions not warranted by the evidence require a reversal. Reed v. Styron, 69 N.M. 262, 365 P.2d 912 (1961); Delgado v. Alexander, 84 N.M. 456, 504 P.2d 1089 (Ct.App. 1972), aff'd on other grounds, 84 N.M. 717, 507 P.2d 778 (1973); Aragon v. Speelman, 83 N.M. 285, 491 P.2d 173 (Ct.App. 1971); Garcia v. Barber's Super Markets, Inc., 81 N.M. 92, 463 P.2d 516 (Ct.App. 1969). The instant case presents the classic problem of whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the defendant. Negligence must be proved, and generally never will be presumed. Kemp v. McNeill Cooperage Co., 7 Del. (Boyce) 146, 104 A. 639 (1918). The mere fact that accidents, injuries, or damages have occurred is not evidence that someone has been negligent. Waterman v. Ciesielski, 87 N.M. 25, 528 P.2d 884 (1974). Some form of proof, or evidence, must be presented which would lead reasonable men to conclude that it is more likely that the event was caused by negligence than that it was not. The evidence must meet the burden of proof by making it appear more likely than not. There is no such thing as a causeless accident; accidents are caused occurrences. The crucial fact question is whether or not the cause of the accident was negligence. One of the theories the plaintiff sought to rely upon to prove defendant's negligence was res ipsa loquitur. The traditional elements of res ipsa loquitur, derived from 4 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2509 (1st ed. 1905), are the following: (1) the event must be a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. The first two elements are most often considered to be the elements of res ipsa loquitur in New Mexico, while the third element is subsumed under contributory negligence. See Waterman v. Ciesielski, supra; Mitchell v. Ridgway, 77 N.M. 249, 421 P.2d 778 (1966); Renfro v. J.D. Coggins Company, 71 N.M. 310, 378 P.2d 130 (1963); Tafoya v. Las Cruces Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 59 N.M. 43, 278 P.2d 575 (1955); Tapia v. McKenzie, 85 N.M. 567, 514 P.2d 618 (Ct.App. 1973). Appellant argued that instruction number 8 interjected the false issue of agency, whereby the jury could conjecture that the driver's negligence could be imputed to the passenger. Appellee countered that the instruction was relevant to the issue of exclusive control, part of the second element of res ipsa loquitur. Appellee's theory has generally only been used by third parties against the driver and the driver's passenger, not between driver and passenger. See Mein v. Reed, 224 Iowa 1274, 278 N.W. 307 (1938); Price v. McDonald, 7 Cal. App. 2d 77, 45 P.2d 425 (1935). "Exclusive control" is not a rigid, inflexible term as appellee would have us believe. See W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 39 (4th ed. 1971). In this case agency principles should not have been interjected into the issue of exclusive control. The trial court erred in submitting this instruction to the jury. *825 Appellant asserts that once the elements of res ipsa loquitur have been established, it compels the inference of negligence by the fact finder. This is not so. Once the elements of res ipsa loquitur have been established, it merely permits and does not compel the inference of negligence by the fact finder. Tuso v. Markey, 61 N.M. 77, 294 P.2d 1102 (1956). The fact finder is free to accept or to reject the inference. The plaintiff argued that the trial court improperly denied his instruction on negligence per se. Plaintiff argued that the defendant, by running off the highway, had violated § 64-18-8 and § 64-18-16 N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d. Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 2, 1972) and should be found negligent as a matter of law. The test for negligence per se is the following: (1) there must be a statute which prescribes certain actions or defines a standard of conduct, either explicitly or implicitly, (2) the defendant must violate the statute, (3) the plaintiff must be in the class of persons sought to be protected by the statute, and (4) the harm or injury to the plaintiff must generally be of the type the legislature through the statute sought to prevent. See Fitzgerald v. Valdez, 77 N.M. 769, 427 P.2d 655 (1967) (failure to put lamp near vehicle at night); Sanchez v. J. Barron Rice, Inc., 77 N.M. 717, 427 P.2d 240 (1967) (failure to adjust furnace); Hisaw v. Hendrix, 54 N.M. 119, 215 P.2d 598 (1950) (failure to put flares out on road and failure to park off pavement); Turrietta v. Wyche, 54 N.M. 5, 212 P.2d 1041 (1949) (sideswiping); Clay v. Texas-Arizona Motor Freight, 49 N.M. 157, 159 P.2d 317 (1945) (speeding); Dahl v. Turner, 80 N.M. 564, 458 P.2d 816 (Ct. App. 1969) (speeding); Prosser § 36, supra. Sections 64-18-8 and -16 supra require that all motorists drive on the right hand side of the road except in certain instances. This the defendant, at least for part of the final 347 feet, failed to do. Whom the legislature sought to protect is not explicitly stated; however, it is reasonable to assume that it is the motoring public in general, including passengers such as the plaintiff. The harm sought to be prevented by the statutes apparently is head-on collisions or sideswiping the opposite moving traffic. It is doubtful that the statute could have been intended by the legislature to apply to a situation such as this. Thus, the district court properly refused to submit this instruction to the jury. Plaintiff argued that the trial court should have granted plaintiff a directed verdict on the issue of liability because defendant was negligent per se. Once negligence per se is found, the fact finders would still have to determine whether the negligence per se was the actual and proximate cause of the accident. Sanchez v. J. Barron Rice, Inc., supra; Fitzgerald v. Valdez, supra. Thus, the judge could not have granted a directed verdict on the issue of liability. The trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions for a new trial to proceed in a manner not inconsistent herewith. STEPHENSON and MONTOYA, JJ., concur.