You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Griego v. Conwell

Citations: 222 P.2d 606; 54 N.M. 287Docket: 5290

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court; September 20, 1950; New Mexico; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In *Griego v. Conwell*, the New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed a wrongful death claim brought by the widow of Jose M. Griego, who was killed in a collision with a vehicle driven by Erle M. Conwell, an employee of the Public Service Company of New Mexico. The jury awarded the widow $15,000, and the subsequent motion for a new trial was denied. While Conwell's negligence was acknowledged, the appellants argued that Griego's contributory negligence should have warranted a directed verdict. The court considered evidence indicating Griego's vehicle was improperly parked, potentially constituting negligence per se, but upheld a presumption of due care for the deceased. The jury was instructed that Griego's car's position did not contribute to the accident, a finding supported legally. The appellants failed to prove Griego's negligence contributed to the collision. Additionally, the court addressed inappropriate remarks made during jury arguments, highlighting the necessity for attorneys to object to such comments. Despite some admonishments, the trial judge did not find these arguments warranted a reversal due to the absence of objections. Consequently, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, maintaining the jury's award in favor of the widow.

Legal Issues Addressed

Contributory Negligence

Application: The appellants failed to demonstrate that Griego's negligence contributed to the accident, thus upholding the presumption of due care.

Reasoning: The appellants did not demonstrate that Griego's negligence contributed to the accident.

Improper Jury Arguments

Application: The court admonished some improper statements during jury arguments but found no reversible error as the appellants did not object.

Reasoning: The court provided admonishments regarding some statements, and no further requests for action were made. Objections were not raised for other statements made during the arguments.

Jury Instructions and Legal Findings

Application: The jury was instructed that the stopped car's position did not contribute to the accident, a finding that is legally supported.

Reasoning: The jury was instructed that the stopped car's position did not contribute to the accident, and this finding is legally supported.

Negligence Per Se

Application: Griego's vehicle was potentially parked improperly on the roadway, thus constituting negligence per se under relevant statutes.

Reasoning: The evidence suggested that Griego's vehicle was parked improperly on the roadway, potentially constituting negligence per se, as per relevant statutes.

Obligation to Object to Improper Remarks

Application: Attorneys have an obligation to object to improper remarks during trial, and failure to do so may lead to the court refraining from intervening.

Reasoning: The trial court has a duty to ensure attorneys remain in the record while addressing the jury, but attorneys also have an obligation to object to improper remarks.

Presumption of Due Care

Application: The court emphasized that the deceased is presumed to have exercised due care, and a directed verdict on contributory negligence can only be issued if no reasonable juror could find otherwise.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that the deceased is presumed to have exercised due care, and a directed verdict on contributory negligence can only be issued if no reasonable juror could find otherwise.