I cannot pre-judge any issues that might come before me and so it is difficult to discuss specifics. Thus, the philosophy and issues that I discuss below have to be reviewed with the understanding that as a judge I will follow the law and analyze each dispute based on the Constitution, statutes, regulations and facts that come before me at the time of the decision regardless of my personal preferences.

Below are a few cases that show the impact the courts have:

Crespin v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, No. 27,864. July 31, 2009.
Last year, the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled that a person who was hit by a ball at an Isotopes game could sue for damages. There was a dissent written in that case that said for years other courts in the country who had considered this issue had applied the “baseball rule”. In other words, everyone going to a game knows that a ball might be hit into the stands either as a homerun or foul ball. Thus attendees assume the risk of a ball entering the stands. The question this raises is how a team or stadium can protect against foul or homerun balls. Will they need to put a net around the whole field? What about high school and little league games?

Interestingly, the Court dismissed the claim against the player who actually hit the ball out of the park. The Court reasoned that the player was just following the rules of the game. Is this inconsistent? If the rules of the game lead to people getting hurt can’t the player take precautions as well as the stadium? Is there a “rules of the game” defense against people who are not actually playing the game? How does the Court decide who can be sued and who cannot?

Herrera v. Quality Pontiac
The New Mexico Supreme Court overturned 40 years of law when it ruled that a company could be responsible for the injuries caused by someone who stole a car off the company lot. , The car owner left his car at the Quality Pontiac lot for repairs. The keys were left in the car and the car was unlocked. The lot was fenced but the gate was unlocked. After 9:00 p.m. Billy Garcia, entered the lot and stole the car. He was engaged in a high speed car chase with the police reaching speeds of close to 90 mph and ending in a collision causing injury. The injured party sued Quality Pontiac for not preventing the theft. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Quality Pontiac could be held liable.

What makes the Quality Pontiac decision so questionable is that 40 years earlier a case with almost exactly the same facts came before the New Mexico Supreme Court. See Bouldin v. Sategna, 71 N.M. 329 (1963). However, in that case the court said that extending liability that far was a policy question best left to the legislature. In other words, it is up to the legislature to establish policy through the law. The Court’s role is to apply the law. Did the structure of government change in the last 40 years? Of course not, the change was in the people and their philosophy on the court.

As for the impact of the decision, does this now mean that a person who leaves their car running in the morning in their driveway to warm up can be responsible if a thief steals the car and injures someone? What if the car is used to facilitate a crime such as robbery or rape? What if a person breaks into your home and steals your gun? Will you then be responsible for any harm caused by the criminal with the gun?