Court Opinion

ID: 9891435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 16:08:49.699112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:21.259813
License: Public Domain

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of
Appeals.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41161

PAMELA CRUMPLER,

      Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LEA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LLC,

      Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
Mark T. Sanchez, District Court Judge

Law Office of Ross Bettis
Ross R. Bettis
Hobbs, NM

for Appellant

Madison, Mroz, Steinman, Kenny & Olexy, P.A.
Jacqueline A. Olexy
Jari L. Rubio
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

MEDINA, Judge.

{1}    Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in
favor of Defendant. We issued a notice of proposed disposition, in which we proposed
to summarily affirm. Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly
considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.
{2}     Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition reiterates the facts stated in the docketing
statement and continues to argue genuine issues of material fact exist. [MIO 6]
However, as stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition, Plaintiff failed to
place any material facts in dispute, and as such, it was for the district court to determine
whether Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [CN 5] Plaintiff
responds by arguing that “conflicting inferences can be drawn from the same basic facts
and the existence of conflicting inferences is evidence of a genuine issue of material
fact.” [MIO 6] We understand Plaintiff to argue that, based on the undisputed facts
regarding the length of time Defendant’s doors had been in operation without any other
reported injuries, conflicting inferences could be drawn as to whether the doors created
a dangerous condition that gave Defendant a duty to warn. [MIO 3-4] Plaintiff’s
argument in this regard is unpersuasive, given that whether a party owes a duty to
another generally constitutes a question of law to be determined by the courts, using
“legal precedent, statutes, and other principles comprising the law.” Gillin v. Carrows
Rests., Inc., 1994-NMCA-089, ¶ 7, 118 N.M. 120, 879 P.2d 121; see also Solon v. WEK
Drilling Co., 1992-NMSC-023, ¶ 17, 113 N.M. 566, 829 P.2d 645 (“It is thoroughly
settled in New Mexico . . . that whether the defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff is a
question of law.”). Plaintiff has not, however, provided any citations to authority to
support her assertion that Defendant had a duty to warn under these circumstances.
See Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co., 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28, 320 P.3d 482 (“Where a party
cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists.”).

{3}    Plaintiff has also failed to respond to this Court’s proposed conclusion that
Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [CN 5, 7] When a case is
decided on the summary calendar, an issue is deemed abandoned when a party fails to
respond to the proposed disposition of that issue. See State v. Johnson, 1988-NMCA-
029, ¶ 8, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 306.

{4}      Finally, we reject Plaintiff’s continued reliance on Greiser v. Brown, 1984-NMCA-
101, 102 N.M. 11, 690 P.2d 454, in asserting that her own forgetfulness regarding the
operation of the doors was a question of fact for the jury. [MIO 5] As explained in the
notice of proposed summary disposition [CN 5-6], Plaintiff’s reliance on Greiser is
unpersuasive, and further, Plaintiff has not responded to our proposed analysis of
Greiser with any persuasive facts, law, or argument. See generally Hennessy v. Duryea,
1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held
that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed
disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). Accordingly, we adhere to our
initial assessment of this matter, and reject Plaintiff’s assertion of error.

{5}     For the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we
affirm.

{6}    IT IS SO ORDERED.

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
WE CONCUR:

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge