Lujan v. New Mex. Dep't of Transp.

VIGIL

Reversed.

Maestas & Suggett, P.C., Paul Maestas, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant. Basham & Basham, P.C., Katherine A. Basham, Peter J. Gould, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

VIGIL, Judge.

{1} Monica Lujan (Plaintiff), as personal representative of Peggy Lujan–Silva (Decedent), sued the New Mexico Department of Transportation (the Department) for wrongful death arising from a single-car accident, alleging that the Department's negligent failure to keep the roadway clear of dangerous debris caused the accident. The district court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment. We reverse.

{31} The foregoing principles were applied in Imburgia v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 114 Ohio Misc.2d 38, 759 N.E.2d 482 (Ohio Ct.Cl.1999), a “Decision of Liability” made by a trial judge sitting on the Ohio Court of Claims. After the car in which the plaintiff was a passenger pulled over onto a highway median with a flat tire, she got out of the car and stepped into an electrical junction box, severely injuring her left foot, ankle, and calf. Id. at 40–41, 759 N.E.2d at 484. These boxes are cylindrical in shape and recessed into the ground in the median next to roadway lights with underground lighting circuit cable splices. Id. at 40, 759 N.E.2d at 484. They are normally covered with a concrete lid, but the concrete lid on this box was broken and had partially fallen into the junction box, which was cluttered with additional debris. Id. at 40–41, 759 N.E.2d at 484. The court first determined that the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) had a duty to maintain the electrical boxes as part of its duty to maintain the roadways in a reasonably safe condition. Id. at 41, 759 N.E.2d at 485. The ODOT had no actual notice that the concrete lid covering the box was damaged, and the case turned on whether the ODOT was charged with constructive notice of the damage. Id. at 42, 759 N.E.2d at 486. The ODOT had no policy regarding routine inspection of the boxes, but it had actual notice that mowers had previously damaged such boxes in other locations, and upon becoming aware that a concrete lid was broken, it would make the necessary repairs. Id. at 4, 759 N.E.2d at 485–86. Given the condition of the box, and its concrete lid, and the apparent length of time that the debris had accumulated in the box, the court concluded, as a fact finder, that the ODOT had constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the box. Id. at 42, 759 N.E.2d at 486. See City of Jackson v. Internal Engine Parts Grp., Inc., 903 So.2d 60 (¶ 10) (Miss.2005) (affirming the trial court finding that the defendant city had either actual or constructive notice of debris obstructions in a drainage ditch by its negligent failure to inspect and maintain the drainage ditch). We find these cases and their reasoning persuasive and consistent with New Mexico jurisprudence. See Pollock, 1999–NMCA–083, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 521, 984 P.2d 768 (rejecting the Department's argument that the plaintiff needed to show where a wrong-way driver entered the highway and how long she had been driving the wrong way to establish notice); Martinez, 2013–NMSC–005, ¶ 42, 296 P.3d 468 (rejecting the defendant's argument that it needed notice of a recurring accident problem at the particular accident site and concluding “more latitude” was appropriate to decide the question of notice). This case presents no basis for modifying our existing precedent. We therefore do not require Plaintiff to supply evidence demonstrating precisely how long the tire debris was on the highway to overcome summary judgment.

{32} We emphasize that the length of time which must pass before constructive notice may be found varies with each specific situation, and the fact that a dangerous condition exists is not sufficient, by itself, to conclude that a duty to inspect was breached. Furthermore, nothing we have said herein is meant to imply that the Department is an insurer of the safety of the highways in New Mexico. However, when the Department has actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on the highways, it has a duty to exercise ordinary care under the circumstances to prevent injury to the motoring public.

{33} The jury must decide whether the Department's system for identifying and removing specific pieces of debris is so lacking as to impute notice of this particular debris on the Department or if the Department's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. Reasonable minds could differ in answering that question. A reasonable juror could agree with Plaintiff that the Department's policies of identifying and removing dangerous debris were inadequate; or the jury could conclude that the Department acted reasonably and that any additional policies would be unreasonable. “Questions of ‘reasonableness' are quintessential issues for a jury to resolve. In our system of justice, we place special confidence in juries to sort through conflicting evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion.” Martinez, 2013–NMSC–005, ¶ 47, 296 P.3d 468.

{34} The Department argues that even if it owed Decedent a duty and breached that duty, her death was not the proximate result of its negligence.

{35} This element concerns “whether and to what extent the defendant's conduct foreseeably and substantially caused the specific injury that actually occurred.” Herrera, 2003–NMSC–018, ¶ 8, 134 N.M. 43, 73 P.3d 181. “An act or omission may be deemed a ‘proximate cause’ of an injury if it contributes to bringing about the injury, if the injury would not have occurred without it, and if it is reasonably connected as a significant link to the injury.” Talbott v. Roswell Hosp. Corp., 2005–NMCA–109, ¶ 34, 138 N.M. 189, 118 P.3d 194; see UJI 13–305 NMRA (defining causation); Galvan v. City of Albuquerque, 1973–NMCA–049, ¶ 18, 85 N.M. 42, 508 P.2d 1339 (“Proximate cause is that which, in a natural or continuous sequence, produces the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred.”). Determining proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury. Id. ¶ 12. Only when the facts are undisputed “and the reasonable inferences from those facts are plain and consistent,” does proximate cause become an issue of law. Id.

{36} The Department argues that even if Plaintiff shows that the Department breached its duty by failing to provide more litter patrols, without being able to show that the tire debris was on the road for an unreasonable length of time, Plaintiff cannot prove that the Department's failure to act proximately caused the accident. The Department insists that since the “tire debris could have been deposited mere seconds before the accident[,]” no reasonable juror could find that the Department's negligence caused the accident. (Emphasis added.) This argument is too speculative to decide as a matter of law. The jury must decide whether remedies could have prevented this accident. See Ryan, 1998–NMCA–116, ¶ 17, 125 N.M. 588, 964 P.2d 149 (deciding that the jury must decide between the parties' disputing theories about whether animal crossing warning signs could have prevented the plaintiff's collision with an elk). We are therefore unpersuaded that no reasonable juror could find proximate cause under the facts before us.

{37} The district court order granting summary judgment in favor of the Department is reversed.

{38} IT IS SO ORDERED.