Court Opinion

ID: 9606228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:48:10.6847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:50.694971
License: Public Domain

LOPEZ, Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Under point (1), appellant challenges the court’s finding of fact no. 10 and conclusions of law nos. 4 and 5 which read: 10. That the proximate cause of the injury and damage sustained by the Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff’s family was the negligence of Joe L. Duran [appellant’s brother] and Frank Duran [appellant]. 4. That Joe L. Duran and Frank Duran breached their duty of reasonable care. 5. That Joe L. Duran and Frank Duran were therefore negligent. In challenging the court’s finding, appellant necessarily argues that it is not supported by substantial evidence. It is well established in New Mexico that a trial court’s finding will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by such evidence. Montoya v. Travelers Ins. Co., 91 N.M. 667, 579 P.2d 793 (1978); Stewart v. Barnes, 80 N.M. 102, 451 P.2d 1006 (Ct.App.1969). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable person might find adequate to support a conclusion. Shirley v. Venaglia, 86 N.M. 721, 527 P.2d 316 (1974). In deciding whether a finding has substantial support, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the finding. Platero v. Jones, 83 N.M. 261, 490 P.2d 1234 (Ct.App.1971). Additionally, in determining the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court will consider only that evidence and those reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which support the finding. Any evidence unfavorable to the finding will not be considered. Stewart v. Barnes, supra. We will not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. Platero v. Jones, supra. The trier of facts is the sole judge of this credibility and the weight to be given the testimony of a witness. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Lewis, 84 N.M. 768, 508 P.2d 577 (1973). The challenged finding and conclusions are based upon the decision that appellant was negligent. Accordingly, in order to determine whether the finding is supported by substantial evidence and the conclusions are supported by the findings, it is first necessary to ascertain upon what legal theory the court based this decision. In this jurisdiction, a person is liable for “such consequences as were or should have been contemplated or might have been foreseen.” Valdez v. Gonzales, 50 N.M. 281, 288, 176 P.2d 173, 177 (1946). This principle has been called the “foreseeability” rule. Valdez v. Gonzales, supra. It is expressed in U.J.L 12.1 as follows: An act to be negligent must be one which a reasonably prudent person would foresee as involving an unreasonable risk of injury to himself or to another and which such a person in the exercise of ordinary care would not do. The record discloses that it was partly upon this rule that the court based its decision that appellant was negligent. Therefore, given the evidence contained in the record and the above stated rules of appellate review, the issue for decision is whether it was reasonable for the court to infer that appellant should have reasonably foreseen his actions as involving an unreasonable risk of injury to appellees. Appellant argues that it was not reasonable for the court to infer that he should have foreseen his brother’s driving the car and becoming involved in an accident. Appellees contend that it was reasonable for the court to make such an inference. I agree. The evidence most favorable to the court’s finding is as follows. Appellant and his brother were living together at appellant’s house on the day of the accident. They began drinking at appellant’s house and then drove his car to a bar some distance from the house. Appellant got drunk and observed his brother in a drunken state. After being asked to leave the bar, appellant went to his car and passed out in the back seat. Appellant’s brother took the keys of the car from his pocket and while driving the car, the brother was involved in the accident which is the subject of this litigation. I conclude that, from this evidence, it was reasonable to infer that appellant should have foreseen his brother’s taking the keys out of his pocket and driving the car in an effort to take both of them to appellant’s house. Because appellant observed his brother in a drunken state, I further conclude that appellant should have foreseen his brother’s actions as creating an unreasonable risk of harm to persons, such as appellees, driving on the public highways. Additionally, because these consequences were of such a nature, I conclude that appellant’s conduct was the proximate cause of appellees’ damages. Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Company, Inc., 86 N.M. 405, 524 P.2d 1021 (Ct.App.1974), modified, 88 N.M. 299, 540 P.2d 229 (1975). Finally, I conclude that a reasonable person might find the above inference adequate to support the court’s finding. Accordingly, I would hold that the court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence and that the court did not err in concluding that appellant was negligent. In arriving at this holding, I am aware that our Supreme Court held in Bouldin v. Sategna, 71 N.M. 329, 378 P.2d 370 (1963), that the theft of a car is not a natural event to be foreseen by a person who is negligent in leaving his car unattended with the key in the ignition. The majority relies primarily upon this holding as support for its decision that the proximate cause of appellees’ damages was the unforeseeable intervening negligence of appellant’s brother. I believe the facts in the present case are sufficiently different to make Bouldin inapplicable. In that case, the thief was unknown to and had no connection with the defendant. Based upon these facts, the decision that the theft of the car was an efficient intervening cause logically followed. However, in the present case, the “thief” was appellant’s brother, was living with appellant on the day of the accident and had gone drinking with appellant at a bar some distance from appellant’s house. The special familial relationship and the fact that appellant and his brother were temporarily living together make the “theft” of appellant’s car foreseeable. Because these facts are qualitatively different, I do not agree that the issue of appellant’s negligence “must be governed by the analogous law” of Bouldin. Accordingly, I would hold that the court did not err in concluding that appellant was negligent. In reaching this decision, I am also aware that appellant testified that he never allowed his brother to operate his car and that his brother’s license to drive had been revoked. In addition, I am aware that appellant testified that he could not have foreseen his brother’s taking the keys of his car and driving it. However, I would remind appellant that, as a reviewing court, we only consider that evidence and those reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which support the finding. We do not consider any evidence unfavorable to the finding. Stewart v. Barnes, supra. I would also remind appellant that the court is the sole judge of his credibility and the weight to be given his testimony. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Lewis, supra. Given these principles, I can only conclude that the court was correct in concluding that appellant was negligent. Furthermore, even if we could consider appellant’s testimony, I agree with appellees’ observation that, given the drunken state of appellant’s brother, it might be expected that the brother would disregard the facts that (1) appellant never allowed him to drive the car, and (2) he did not have a driver’s license. Finally, I do not agree with appellant’s claim that the car could have been driven by a third party named Reuben Miera. The record does not indicate that Miera had a valid driver’s license or that he was in a sober state. Because I would hold that the court did not err in concluding that appellant was negligent, I do not reach appellant’s second point for reversal.