Title: Adamchek v. Gemm Enterprises, Inc.

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

627 P.2d 866 (1981) 96 N.M. 24 Peter Lynn ADAMCHEK, Petitioner, v. GEMM ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Bagel Nosh Restaurant and Edward Muzio, Respondents. No. 12997. Supreme Court of New Mexico. April 23, 1981. *867 Adams & Foley, Quincy D. Adams, Albuquerque, for petitioner. Gallagher, Casados & Martin, J.E. Casados, Albuquerque, for respondents. RIORDAN, Justice. On December 30, 1980, an opinion in the above case was handed down by this Court. A motion for rehearing was filed by the respondents. The motion was granted in order to reconsider our original opinion. We are hereby withdrawing the opinion of December 30, 1980 and substituting the following opinion. Defendants-appellees (Gemm, Inc. and Muzio) were granted summary judgment against plaintiff-appellant (Adamchek). Adamchek brought this tort action against his employer and the corporation for injury resulting from a gunshot wound. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Workmen's Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for plaintiff. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, and we granted certiorari. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and the trial court. Gemm, Inc., owns a restaurant and Muzio is an officer and stockholder in the Gemm Corporation. Adamchek was employed by Gemm, Inc., as a cook. When Adamchek returned to the restaurant from a personal errand, Muzio was playing with a .357 magnum pistol. Muzio accidentally discharged the gun inflicting serious injuries to Adamchek. The critical question in the case at bar is whether the accidental shooting of Adamchek was a risk incident to the work itself thereby leaving Adamchek the exclusive remedy provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Montoya, 91 N.M. 788, 581 P.2d 1283 (1978), the workman was injured after leaving his duties but still on the employer's premises. He was injured by a security guard striking him on the head with a night stick. This Court held that the workman's exclusive remedy in that case was under the Workmen's Compensation Act. A night stick is a device normally used by a security guard in performing his job, a tool of his trade. Although an injury to a fellow employee from the negligent use of a device or tool of the trade may be said to arise out of the employment, in the case at bar, a pistol in the hands of a corporate executive cannot be said to be a device or tool of his trade normally used in the performance of his executive duties. The negligent injury of an employee through the accidental discharge of such a pistol does not ordinarily arise out of the employment. *868 In Berry v. J.C. Penney Co., 74 N.M. 484, 394 P.2d 996 (1964) this Court, as stated in part, held as follows: Id. at 485, 394 P.2d at 997. In Gutierrez v. Artesia Public Schools, 92 N.M. 112, 583 P.2d 476 (Ct.App. 1978), a teacher's widow sought to recover workmen's compensation benefits for the murder of her husband committed at a time when the victim-teacher was at school but was not at work. The Court of Appeals clearly defined and delineated the meaning of "arise out of" as used in the Workmen's Compensation Act as follows: Id. at 115, 583 P.2d at 479. Applying the rationale from the above case, we do not see any basis for a ruling that a gunshot wound could be traced to the employment as a restaurant cook being a contributing proximate cause of the gunshot wound in this case. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to reinstate it on its docket for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. EASLEY, C.J., SOSA, Senior Justice, and PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.