Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc.

New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1982 · Torts

646 P.2d 579 (1982)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsComparative negligenceJoint and several liabilityApportionment of faultpure comparative negligenceconcurrent tortfeasorsjoint and several liability abolishedseveral liability

Facts

Plaintiffs were in a three-car accident when the lead car signaled a right turn, turned into a service station, then pulled out again very quickly. Plaintiff Jane Bartlett braked to avoid the lead car, and defendant's truck, traveling behind plaintiffs, skidded into the rear of plaintiffs' car. The lead driver was unknown, and plaintiffs sued only defendant for negligence. The jury found $100,000 in damages, found plaintiffs not negligent, assigned 30% fault to defendant, and 70% fault to the unknown driver.

Issue

In a pure comparative negligence case, is one concurrent tortfeasor liable for all damages caused by multiple concurrent tortfeasors under joint and several liability? Also, may the fact finder determine the percentage of fault attributable to a non-party concurrent tortfeasor such as an unknown driver?

Rule

Under New Mexico's pure comparative negligence system, damages are apportioned according to fault. A concurrent tortfeasor is not jointly and severally liable for the entire damage caused by multiple concurrent tortfeasors, but is liable only for the percentage of damages caused by that tortfeasor's own fault. The jury must determine the percentage of negligence of all participants in the occurrence, including non-party or unknown concurrent tortfeasors.

🔒

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 Albuquerque, Nora Campos was injured when a delivery van driven by Eli Mercer struck her car after a second motorist abruptly swerved across lanes and sped away. Nora sued only Eli's employer, Mesa Crest Logistics, and the jury found total damages of $200,000, allocating 25% fault to Eli and 75% to the unidentified motorist.

Under New Mexico's pure comparative negligence rule as described here, how much may Nora recover from Mesa Crest Logistics?

Explanation. The governing rule is that in New Mexico pure comparative negligence, a concurrent tortfeasor is not jointly and severally liable for all damages caused by multiple negligent actors. Instead, each tortfeasor is liable only for the percentage of damages attributable to that tortfeasor's own fault, and the fact finder may allocate fault to an unknown nonparty. With 25% fault and $200,000 total damages, Mesa Crest owes $50,000.