Source: https://www.hpylaw.com/publications/how-settlement-credits-work-new-mexico/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:10:30+00:00

Document:
A credit for amounts paid by others is improper, however, if the verdict is based on principles of comparative fault.iii In New Mexico, “[c]omparative negligence requires a determination of the percentage of negligence of each plaintiff, defendant, beneficiary, and non-party that caused the plaintiff's total damage.”iv Thus, if the jury determines the percentage of fault for all non-party settlors, in addition to the named defendants, the non-settling defendant will not be entitled to any settlement credits. A credit is not necessary because the defendant is paying only its share of the plaintiff’s damages.
i NMSA 1978, § 41-3-4 (1947).
ii Kirby v. N.M. State Highway Dep’t, 643 P.2d 256, 260 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982).
iii Atler v. Murphy Enters., 104 P.3d 1092, 1100 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004).
iv Richter v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 326 P.3d 50, 65 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).
v It is unclear what is mean by “but only to that portion of the total liability attributed to those persons.” Joint liability means a defendant is liable for all of the plaintiff’s damages, even if caused in part by another defendant. Yet this language seems to suggest something inconsistent with that principle. Perhaps this provision would be triggered in a case where the jury found one defendant’s negligence was 30% responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries and the remaining defendants were liable, under a strict liability theory, for causing 70% of the plaintiff’s damages. The strict liability defendants would each be jointly and severally liable for 70% of the plaintiff’s damages.
vi NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1(C).
vii Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 795 P.2d 1006, 1012 (N.M. 1990).
viii Safeway, Inc. v. Rooter 2000 Plumbing & Drain, 368 P.3d 389, 397 (N.M. 2016).
x Pinto v. Warn Indus., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193249, at *12 (D.N.M. 2015).

References: § 41
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 41
 v. 
 v. 
 v.