Archibeque v. Homrich

New Mexico Court of Appeals · Torts

Tortswrongful deathres ipsa loquiturjury instructionsunsupported instructionscontributory negligencesudden emergencyres ipsa loquitur

Facts

Plaintiff's decedent was riding in his own station wagon on a trip to Texas after picking up defendant's decedent as a hitchhiker who offered to help drive. Days later, both men were found dead in the vehicle at the bottom of an arroyo off a straight, level, dry highway in New Mexico, with defendant's decedent slumped over the steering wheel and plaintiff's decedent on the passenger side. Physical evidence showed the car traveled 274 feet on the right shoulder, returned to the highway, crossed diagonally for 73 feet without braking marks, then left the east side and rolled into the arroyo. There were no eyewitnesses, and the investigating officer opined that the driver apparently dozed off and fell asleep.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on defenses and issues not supported by the evidence, including contributory negligence, sudden emergency, and the possibility that the accident occurred without negligence by defendant's decedent. Also, whether plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict on liability under res ipsa loquitur.

Rule

It is error to instruct on issues unsupported by the evidence, even if those issues appear in the pleadings, because such instructions mislead the jury and induce it to consider false issues. The party asserting the affirmative of an issue bears the burden of proof. In addition, a sudden emergency instruction is proper only when there is evidence of both a sudden emergency or peril and the absence of negligence by the person confronted with that peril. Res ipsa loquitur allows, but does not require, the fact finder to infer negligence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a wrongful death action in New Mexico, Maya Ortiz sues the estate of Daniel Keene after a single-vehicle crash outside Santa Fe. The evidence shows only that Daniel was driving and the car left a dry, straight road; no witness or physical evidence suggests Maya did anything careless as a passenger.

If the trial judge instructs the jury on contributory negligence because the defense pleaded it in the answer, what is the best assessment?

Explanation. It is error to instruct on issues unsupported by the evidence, even if they appear in the pleadings, because such instructions mislead the jury and inject false issues. Where the record contains no evidence that the passenger failed to use ordinary care, a contributory negligence instruction should not be given. (Derived from Archibeque v. Homrich (n.d.).)