NM Stat § 66-5-41 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 66 - Motor Vehicles|Article 5 - Licensing of Operators and Chauffeurs; Financial Responsibility; Uninsured Motorists' Insurance; Identification Cards|Part 1 - OPERATORS' AND CHAUFFEURS' LICENSES|Section 66-5-41 - Permitting unauthorized person to drive.

No person shall authorize or knowingly permit a motor vehicle owned by him or under his control to be driven upon any highway by any person who is not authorized hereunder or is in violation of any of the provisions of this article. History: 1953 Comp., § 64-5-41, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 263. ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For offenses by persons owning or controlling vehicles, see 66-8-121 NMSA 1978. Negligent entrustment claim. — To prevail on a negligent entrustment claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant entrusted the vehicle to the plaintiff when defendant knew or should have known plaintiff was an incompetent driver, and plaintiff's incompetence caused the injury. Entrustment, or permission to use the vehicle, can either be express or implied. Implied permission to use a motor vehicle can be inferred from a course of conduct or relationship between the parties, or other facts and circumstances signifying the assent of the owner. Armenta v. A.S. Horner, Inc., 2015-NMCA-092, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-008. Where worker, on a work-related trip in Springer, New Mexico, had been allowed to drive employer's vehicle after work hours to pick up food and alcohol for an employees' dinner, but after dinner was told by his supervisor to drink moderately and to not leave the motel, worker, despite the warning, left the motel in employer's vehicle and headed to Raton to continue partying. Worker was killed in an accident just north of Springer. Worker's blood alcohol concentration was .23 at the time of his death. The district court erred in granting employer's motion for summary judgment where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether worker had implied permission to drive employer's vehicle the night of the accident when worker's superiors knew that worker had the car keys and had been driving the vehicle throughout the week, including that night, and when the supervisor knew that worker had been drinking beer that night. Armenta v. A.S. Horner, Inc., 2015-NMCA-092, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-008. Negligent entrustment claim when the driver is intoxicated. — A suit brought by an injured entrustee against his entrustor is a viable cause of action in a comparative negligence jurisdiction. Comparative negligence provides the appropriate framework for examining any negligence on the part of the individual who drives after consuming alcoholic beverages. Provided that the elements of negligent entrustment are proven, an entrustee may state a claim for simple negligent entrustment against the entrustor when the entrustee's voluntary intoxication causes injury. Armenta v. A.S. Horner, Inc., 2015-NMCA-092, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-008. Where worker, on a work-related trip in Springer, New Mexico, had been allowed to drive employer's vehicle after work hours to pick up food and alcohol for an employees' dinner, but after dinner was told by his supervisor to drink moderately and to not leave the motel, worker, despite the warning, left the motel in employer's vehicle and headed to Raton to continue partying. Worker was killed in an accident just north of Springer. Worker's blood alcohol concentration was .23 at the time of his death. The district court erred in granting employer's motion for summary judgment because an adult drunk driver who injures himself is entitled to a comparative fault trial predicated on the theory of negligent entrustment. Armenta v. A.S. Horner, Inc., 2015-NMCA-092, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-008. "Authorize or knowingly permit" means "know or should have known." Spencer v. Gamboa, 1985-NMCA-033, 102 N.M. 692, 699 P.2d 623. When section violated. — Section imposes no affirmative duty on owner to ascertain the qualifications of borrower to drive the car; rather, an owner violates this section only if he knows or should know that the borrower is not qualified to drive the car. Equitable Gen. Ins. Co. v. Silva, 1983-NMCA-002, 99 N.M. 371, 658 P.2d 446, cert. denied, 99 N.M. 358, 658 P.2d 433; Spencer v. Gamboa, 1985-NMCA-033, 102 N.M. 692, 699 P.2d 623. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 7A Am. Jur. 2d Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 149. Construction, application, and effect of legislation making it offense to permit unauthorized or unlicensed person to operate motor vehicle, 69 A.L.R.2d 978. 61A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 687.