Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Porter v. Ferguson-Steere Motor Company
Citations: 321 P.2d 1112; 63 N.M. 466Docket: 6324-6327
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court; February 11, 1958; New Mexico; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of New Mexico addressed the consolidated cases of multiple plaintiffs against Potash Mines Transportation Company and Ferguson-Steere Motor Company, following a fatal bus and truck collision. The plaintiffs, representing deceased passengers and an injured passenger, alleged negligence by the bus driver and sought damages. Ferguson-Steere settled prior to trial, leaving Potash Mines as the sole defendant. The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Potash Mines appealed, challenging the jury instructions related to negligence. Key jury instructions included the requirement for the bus driver to exercise the highest degree of care, especially if aware of potential dangers. The court clarified that the instructions did not infringe on the jury's role, as they simply outlined that certain factual findings could establish negligence. The court affirmed that the jury was the ultimate fact-finder on negligence, and the instructions were deemed appropriate, with no issues raised regarding the sufficiency of evidence or award amounts. To recover a judgment against Potash Mines Transportation Company, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the bus driver was negligent in one or more specified ways, including failing to keep a proper lookout, maintain control of the bus, operate at a reasonable speed considering conditions, and reduce speed or stop when necessary for safety. Additionally, the plaintiff must establish that this negligence was the proximate cause of the accident and that the damages received from a settlement with Ferguson-Steere Motor Company were inadequate. While there is no specific statute mandating drivers to keep a proper lookout or control, common law requires these duties. The instructions provided to the jury regarding these responsibilities were deemed appropriate, and any minor technical errors in wording were considered harmless. The court found no prejudicial error in the record, affirming the judgments based on the appeals filed.