Opinion ID: 165446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Punitive Damages for Negligent Retention and Supervision

Text: 28 T & B also argues insufficient evidence supports the jury's punitive damage award on Plaintiff's negligent retention and supervision claim. Under New Mexico law, an award of punitive damages `is permissible upon a finding that the wrongdoer's conduct was willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, oppressive, grossly negligent, or fraudulent and in bad faith.' Nieto v. Kapoor, 268 F.3d 1208, 1222 (10th Cir.2001) (quoting Downs v. Garay, 106 N.M. 321, 742 P.2d 533 (Ct.App.1987)). To show recklessness, a defendant must have acted intentionally with utter indifference to the consequences of its conduct. Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp., 120 N.M. 133, 899 P.2d 576, 588 (1995). 5 29 Here, the evidence was sufficient to show T & B acted recklessly. The evidence presented at trial showed T & B knew or reasonably should have known that Marrujo was capable of, among other things, physical assault and battery and intentionally failed to remedy the situation. Again, Plaintiff testified T & B supervisors were often present when Marrujo engaged in inappropriate behavior or physically assaulted her, but failed to intervene or report Marrujo. Thus, a reasonable jury could have inferred that T & B management acted with utter indifference to the consequences of its conduct. 30 Further, Plaintiff testified that her efforts to complain to T & B management proved entirely futile. Plaintiff explained that I complained about [Marrujo]. I went to Bob Romo. I went to all the supervisors that we had, every last supervisor we had. T & B, however, failed to reasonably investigate Plaintiff's complaints or discipline Marrujo. Moreover, Bob Romo, a production supervisor, expressly warned T & B that Marrujo's presence undermined the company's efforts to maintain a safe and healthy work environment and recommended that Marrujo be terminated because of her unacceptable behavior. (Plaintiff's Ex. 14). T & B disregarded this advice. Based on the foregoing, a reasonable jury could infer that T & B's acts were taken with utter indifference to the consequences.