Title: Galles Chevrolet Co. v. Chaney

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

593 P.2d 59 (1979) 92 N.M. 618 GALLES CHEVROLET COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Charles CHANEY, RESPONDENT. No. 12343. Supreme Court of New Mexico. April 9, 1979. *60 Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, Robert G. McCorkle, Steven P. Bailey, Albuquerque, for petitioner. Kanter & Carmody, John J. Carmody, Jr., Albuquerque, for respondent. FEDERICI, Justice. Charles Chaney, plaintiff-respondent (plaintiff), brought this action against his employer, Galles Chevrolet Company, defendant-petitioner (defendant), seeking damages. Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a mechanic and vehicle repairman. While on defendant's premises, plaintiff fell and injured his back. Plaintiff sought recovery based on defendant's negligence and under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The parties settled the workmen's compensation claim and agreed to a dismissal of that cause of action. Thereafter, the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the negligence claim. Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, Judge Hernandez dissenting. The court determined that plaintiff was not on his way to assume the duties of his employment at the time of the accident. The Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff had no claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act and it held that the provisions of the Act would not bar a negligence action. This Court granted defendant's petition for writ of certiorari. We reverse. Section 59-10-12.12, N.M.S.A. 1953, read as follows at the time of the accident in 1974: This statute was amended in 1975 and is now found at § 52-1-19, N.M.S.A. 1978. However, the language emphasized above is identical to that in the amended version. We discussed this portion of the statute in Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Montoya, 91 N.M. 788, 790, 581 P.2d 1283, 1285 (1978): If plaintiff was on his way to assume the duties of his employment and since plaintiff claims defendant was negligent, § 52-1-19 and the cases construing that section would cause the Workmen's Compensation Act to apply. In this case the record clearly shows and plaintiff expressly stated in his brief-in-chief in the Court of Appeals, and the trial court specifically found that plaintiff was on his way to assume the duties of his employment when he was injured. This finding was not challenged on appeal and there is substantial evidence to support it. The only remaining issue is whether the Workmen's Compensation Act provides plaintiff's exclusive remedy. Section 52-1-6(D), N.M.S.A. 1978 provides in part that: Section 52-1-8(C), N.M.S.A. 1978, provides in part that: If the Workmen's Compensation Act applies, the employee's negligence action, if any, is precluded. Our decision in this case is controlled by the rule set out in Mountain States. In that case the injured employee was provided with a compensable claim under § 52-1-19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In Mountain States we said: Id. at 791, 581 P.2d at 1286. The result is the same in this case. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the trial court's order granting summary judgment for defendant is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. SOSA, C.J., McMANUS, Senior Justice, and EASLEY and PAYNE, JJ., concur.