Court Opinion

ID: 9619050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:21:27.235354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:35.902594
License: Public Domain

OMAN, Justice (specially concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. I also agree with much of the reasoning of the majority for combining the separate defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence into the one defense of contributory negligence. Unfortunately, the differences between these two concepts seem not to have been fully understood by many of our lawyers and judges, and this lack of understanding has unquestionably caused confusion and doubt in the application of these defenses to many factual situations. However, I do not agree that assumption of risk and contributory negligence, as they have developed and been defined in New Mexico, are mutually inclusive and identical. I only agree that both concepts, in view of the confusion and lack of appreciation of the differences ■ between them, can better be considered, understood and applied as elements of the single affirmative defense of contributory negligence. As the majority have observed, contributory negligence is a broad and flexible' doctrine encompassing an intentional and unreasonable exposure of one’s self to danger as well as other conduct which falls short of the standard to which a reasonable person should conform for protection from injury or harm. COMPTON, C. J., concurs.