Opinion ID: 2612429
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Judgment is Supported by Substantial Evidence.

Text: To determine whether a finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to support the finding, indulging the trial court's decision with all reasonable inferences. Tyrpak v. Lee, 108 N.M. 153, 768 P.2d 352 (1989). Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Register v. Roberson Constr. Co., 106 N.M. 243, 741 P.2d 1364 (1987). Empire has presented several substantial evidence issues. Initially it complains that Test Boring No. 8 was not drilled to the requisite depth. Our review indicates that ATL noted in its report that the boring was only fourteen feet, and this was accepted by Empire, constituting a waiver of the exact specification. See Kirkpatrick v. McMillan, 49 N.M. 100, 157 P.2d 772 (1945). Evidence also supports the conclusion that, under the circumstances, ATL's performance met industry standards for performance of this type of specifications. The agreement also required ATL to obtain copies of certain tests. The evidence indicates that review of these documents allows a reasonable conclusion that they did not indicate unengineered fill. The contract requires certain tests to be performed as applicable. The record supports a conclusion that, in ATL's professional judgment, it performed the necessary tests within the scope of work. Empire further attacks findings made regarding its own negligence. Empire's negligence was not at issue, and these claims cannot be dispositive of any breach of duty by ATL. Accordingly, our review of the record indicates that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the court's conclusions of law.