Smith v. State ex rel. New Mexico Department of Parks & Recreation

Citations: 106 N.M. 368; 743 P.2d 124Docket: No. 9435

Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals; August 20, 1987; New Mexico; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs, as personal representatives of deceased individuals, appeal a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the State Park and Recreation Department under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act regarding a boating accident that occurred on March 18, 1984. The appeal revolves around whether the State was given timely and adequate actual notice of the wrongful death claims. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs did not meet the notice requirement set forth in Section 41-4-16 of the Tort Claims Act, asserting that no notification was received within the specified ninety-day period following the incident. This assertion was supported by affidavits from the director of the State Department of Parks and Recreation and the assistant director of the State Risk Management Division, indicating no record of notice during that timeframe. In contrast, plaintiffs provided an affidavit from Curtis Smith, which detailed multiple conversations he had with several state officials, including the boating supervisor and the park superintendent, within the ninety-day window. He claimed to have communicated the belief that the State's negligence contributed to the deaths and indicated the likelihood of legal action. The court ultimately reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs relied on an affidavit from Curtis Smith and an accident investigation report from the New Mexico State Police during the hearing on their motion. However, the court did not consider the report as it was not part of the record on appeal or presented to the trial court during the summary judgment hearing. The district court granted summary judgment, determining no genuine issue of material fact existed and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to plaintiffs' failure to meet the 90-day notice requirement of the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, Section 41-4-16. 

Plaintiffs argued the trial court erred in ruling that Smith's affidavit did not sufficiently provide notice of the incident per Section 41-4-16(B). The court analyzed two key issues: whether the notice given by plaintiffs met the actual notice requirement and whether proper notice was provided to the relevant state officials. Plaintiffs acknowledged they did not provide written notice as required but asserted that the defendant had actual notice of the drownings and that Smith had informed the state officials of the likelihood of legal proceedings due to alleged negligence. The statutory notice requirement aims to alert the governmental agency to potential lawsuits. Actual notice is sufficient if the agency is informed within 90 days of the occurrence, which could indicate a likelihood of litigation. Smith's affidavit claimed he notified officials from the State Parks and Recreation Commission of the incidents and the potential for a lawsuit within the required timeframe.

Affidavits from Carlos Martinez and Taylor Hendrickson indicated that their departments did not receive timely notice of the plaintiffs' claim. The legal standard requires that parties opposing summary judgment are afforded the benefit of any reasonable doubts regarding material factual issues. Summary judgment should only resolve the existence of factual issues, not decide them. Generally, whether notice was provided is a factual issue for the trier of fact, and evidence of conflicting accounts necessitates further examination. 

The plaintiffs asserted they provided actual notice to officials in the State Parks and Recreation Department, raising a material factual issue that precludes summary judgment. The defendant contended that actual notice must be provided to the department head or the Risk Management Division, not merely any state employee. However, precedent indicates that notice to an agent of the public entity within the required timeframe suffices. The plaintiffs' affidavit confirmed that notice was given to relevant officials, thus satisfying the statutory notice requirements. 

The court concluded that the plaintiffs' affidavit presented sufficient evidence of actual notice, potentially excusing the need for written notice. Consequently, the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint via summary judgment was determined to be an error, leading to the reversal of the summary judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. The parties are to bear their own costs.