Source: http://www.djnmlaw.com/misc..html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:19:32+00:00

Document:
Brenneman v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico, 2004-NMCA-003, 135 N.M. 68, 84 P.3d 685.
This case presents the question of whether loss of consortium damages are recoverable under Sections 41-4-9 and -10 of New Mexico's Tort Claims Act. See NMSA 1978, §§ 41-4-1 to -27 (1976, as amended through 2003) (hereinafter "the Act"). We hold that loss of consortium damages are permissible under the Act's provisions for damages resulting from bodily injury. We therefore reverse the trial court's dismissal of the loss of consortium claims.
Brenneman v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico, 2004-NMCA-003, ¶ 1, 135 N.M. 68, 69, 84 P.3d 685, 686.
Bustos et al. v. Hyundai Motor Company et al., 2010-NMCA-090, 149 N.M. 1, 243 P.3d 440, cert. quashed, __ -NMCERT- __, __ N.M. __, __ P.3d __, (N.M. June 5, 2012).
[**1] Marcos Leandro Baca was killed in a rollover accident involving a Hyundai automobile. Mr. Baca's estate, parents, and brother (Plaintiffs) brought suit against Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, and Borman Motor Company (Defendants) in negligence, implied warranty, and strict products liability asserting that the roof structure of the car was defectively designed. The jury found in favor of Plaintiffs on all claims and awarded $ 4.2 million.
[**2] Defendants appeal arguing that (1) the district court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony as to the design defect and enhanced injury, (2) Plaintiffs failed to prove that a design defect existed, (3) Plaintiffs failed to prove the degree of injury enhancement resulting from the alleged design defect, and (4) the district court erred as a matter of law by failing to specifically instruct the jury that Plaintiffs were required to prove the feasibility of a reasonable alternative design which could have eliminated the alleged defect. We affirm the district court's entry of judgment on the jury verdict. Bustos et al. v. Hyundai Motor Company et al., 2010-NMCA-090, ¶¶ 1-2, 149 N.M. 1, 3, 243 P.3d 440, 442.
Thompson v. Torrance County Board of Commissioners, et al., 2011 N.M. App. Unpub. LEXIS 352 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2011) (unpublished memorandum opinion).
As personal representative of the estate of Richard Brown, Bruce E. Thompson (Plaintiff) appeals the district court's order dismissing Counts I, II, IV, and VI of his complaint as a matter of law. Plaintiff presents three arguments on appeal: (1) [*2] the 911 dispatchers are subject to a waiver of immunity for law enforcement officers, or, alternatively, the district court erred in not allowing Plaintiff to conduct additional discovery regarding factual issues related to the waiver; (2) the 911 dispatchers are subject to a waiver of immunity because their actions involve the operation of machinery or equipment; and (3) the Enhanced 911 Act, NMSA 1978, Section 63-9D-10 (2005), indicates that the Legislature did not intend to provide tort immunity based upon the use of non-enhanced 911 systems. We reverse the district court's dismissal of Counts I, II, IV, and VI, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Thompson v. Torrance County Board of Commissioners, et al., 2011 N.M. App. Unpub. LEXIS 352, 1-2 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2011) (unpublished memorandum opinion).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.