1998 -NMSC- 7, Carmona v. Hagerman Irrigation Co.
Decision Date | 05 March 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 24243,24243 |
Citation | 957 P.2d 44,1998 NMSC 7,125 N.M. 59 |
Parties | , 1998 -NMSC- 7 Yolanda CARMONA, as personal representative of the Estate of Alejandra Carmona, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAGERMAN IRRIGATION COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
¶1Plaintiff-AppellantYolanda Carmona(Carmona) appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-AppelleeHagerman Irrigation Company(Hagerman) in her wrongful death claim arising out of the drowning of her child, Alejandra Carmona.Carmona seeks damages and injunctive relief for negligence under the attractive nuisance doctrine.Carmona contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on the basis of Arizona's Salladay doctrine rather than relying on New Mexico law.SeeSalladay v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co., 12 Ariz. 124, 100 P. 441(1909).In a cross-appeal, Hagerman asks this Court to reverse the trial court's letter decision denying Hagerman's motion for summary judgment under the Tort Claims Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 41-4-1 to -27 (1976, as amended through 1996), should this Court reverse on the Salladay issue.
¶2We conclude that the trial court erred by applying the Salladay doctrine and granting Hagerman's motion for summary judgment.We also conclude that Hagerman is not a governmental entity and, therefore, is not entitled to summary judgment for immunity under the Tort Claims Act.We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶3 On May 29, 1993, two-and-one-half-year-old Alejandra Carmona drowned in an irrigation canal owned and maintained by Hagerman Irrigation Company.Carmona, decedent's mother, seeks damages for wrongful death and abatement of the nuisance under the doctrine of attractive nuisance.
¶4 Hagerman is a privately owned, non-profit corporation engaged in the business of furnishing water for irrigation and domestic purposes to its members near the town of Hagerman, New Mexico.In the Order on Summary Judgment, the trial court found that this community is in an arid region of the state and that the irrigation system owned by Hagerman provides water necessary to the surrounding farming community.
¶5The trial court issued a letter decision denying Hagerman's motion for summary judgment on the question of immunity under the Tort Claims Act, finding that there were disputed issues of fact.In a subsequent motion for summary judgment, Hagerman argued that, as an irrigation ditch operator, it is immune from application of the attractive nuisance doctrine.The trial court, in granting the motion, relied on Arizona's Salladay doctrine, which has not been recognized by a New Mexico appellate court.SeeSalladay, 100 P. at 442( ).
¶6We accepted certification on this case from the Court of Appeals on the question of whether Hagerman is entitled to summary judgment based upon the Salladay doctrine or, alternatively, immunity from liability under the Tort Claims Act.The question of whether New Mexico should adopt the Salladay doctrine is "an issue of substantial public interest."SeeNMSA 1978, § 34-5-14(C)(2)(1972).In the certification order, the Court of Appeals stated that New Mexico has adopted the formulation of the attractive nuisance theory expressed in the Restatement (Second) of Torts§ 339(1965) and determined that this "judicially created cause of action" requires "clarification in the context of its application to possessors and operators of irrigation ditches."
¶7"Summary judgment is an extreme remedy which should yield to a trial on the merits if, after resolving all reasonable doubts in favor of the opponent of the motion, the evidence adduced at the hearing establishes the existence of a genuine issue as to any material fact."Peoples State Bank v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 96 N.M. 751, 752, 635 P.2d 306, 307(1981)."Summary judgment is proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Roth v. Thompson, 113 N.M. 331, 334, 825 P.2d 1241, 1244(1992).
¶8 The attractive nuisance doctrine evolved as an exception to the general rule that a landowner is not liable to trespassers.1In Railroad Company v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657, 21 L.Ed. 745(1873), the United States Supreme Court employed the attractive nuisance, or "turntable," doctrine, 2 and allowed recovery by a trespassing child injured while playing with a turntable on railroad property.The Court recognized "that the conduct of an infant of tender years is not to be judged by the same rule which governs that of an adult," and that the "care and caution required of a child is according to his [or her] maturity and capacity only, and [that] this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of that case."Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) at 660.
¶9 The Arizona Supreme Court, in Salladay, refused to extend the attractive nuisance doctrine enunciated in Stout because the condition was part of a class of "patent and visible alluring dangers."SeeSalladay, 100 P. at 442.The Court held that an unenclosed flume maintained by the defendant on his land did not fall under the attractive nuisance doctrine as a matter of law, effectively granting immunity for the death of the plaintiff's child, who was carried down the flume while playing near it as a trespasser.SeeSalladay, 100 P. at 441-42.The Court concluded that flumes and irrigation ditches are "equally dangerous and alluring" to children but "practically impossible to render harmless" and "indispensable for the maintenance of life and prosperity."Salladay, 100 P. at 442."[W]ith regard to trespassing children who drown in irrigation canals, as a matter of public policy, the Salladay doctrine is as viable today [in Arizona] as it was in 1906[sic]."Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court, 178 Ariz. 70, 870 P.2d 1166, 1171(Ariz.Ct.App.1993).
¶10This Court also has recognized the "constitutional significance" of water and "[i]ts scarcity and overall importance in our semiarid state."Bybee v. City of Albuquerque, 120 N.M. 17, 20, 896 P.2d 1164, 1167(1995).However, the trial court erred by applying the Salladay doctrine rather than referring to New Mexico law concerning attractive nuisance.Appellate courts in New Mexico have considered the attractive nuisance doctrine on numerous occasions.See generallyMartinez v. Louis Lyster, Gen. Contractor, Inc., 75 N.M. 639, 642, 409 P.2d 493, 495(1965)( );Saul v. Roman Catholic Church, 75 N.M. 160, 164, 402 P.2d 48, 51(1965)( );Klaus v. Eden, 70 N.M. 371, 376, 374 P.2d 129, 132(1962)( );Mellas v. Lowdermilk, 58 N.M. 363, 369, 271 P.2d 399, 404(1954)( );Latimer v. City of Clovis, 83 N.M. 610, 615, 495 P.2d 788, 793(Ct.App.1972)( ).
¶11This Court has applied the doctrine of attractive nuisance to avoid the harsh results of treating children as trespassers and denying recovery in the absence of wanton negligence on the part of the defendant.SeeSelby v. Tolbert, 56 N.M. 718, 723, 249 P.2d 498, 501(1952)( )."[W]e see nothing different in the so-called law of attractive nuisance and the general law of negligence, except that involved is a recognition of the habits and characteristics of very young children."Klaus, 70 N.M. at 375, 374 P.2d at 131.
¶12 In Mellas, this Court discussed the application of the attractive nuisance doctrine with respect to ponds, pools, lakes and irrigation ditches.SeeMellas, 58 N.M. at 368-69, 271 P.2d at 403.Mellas involved a nine-year-old boy who drowned in a fenced pond which included posted "no trespassing" and "no swimming" signs.Mellas, 58 N.M. at 363-65, 271 P.2d at 400-01.The question for determination was whether the attractive nuisance doctrine should be extended to "cases of patent and visible alluring dangers other than those arising from mechanical appliances, defects, or otherwise."Mellas, 58 N.M. at 368, 271 P.2d at 403.This Court concluded that "we are clearly of [the] opinion that [the attractive nuisance doctrine] should not be extended" because bodies of water "are practically impossible to render harmless, and are indispensible [sic] for the maintenance of life and property."Mellas, 58 N.M. at 368-69, 271 P.2d at 403;see alsoMartinez v. C.R. Davis Contracting Co., 73 N.M. 474, 477-78, 389 P.2d 597, 599(1964)(Noble, J., dissenting)( ).However, we question the continuing validity of...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Montaño v. Frezza
...Pub. Sch. Dist., 1999–NMCA–111, ¶ 8, 128 N.M. 1, 988 P.2d 311 ; cf. Carmona v. Hagerman Irrigation Co., 1998–NMSC–007, ¶ 21, n. 5, 125 N.M. 59, 957 P.2d 44 (“The [NMTCA] provides immunity from liability, not absolute immunity from suit, so the collateral order exception to the finality of j......
-
Kessler v. Mortenson
...Neb. 943, 473 N.W.2d 113, 118 (1991); Vega by Muniz v. Piedilato, 154 N.J. 496, 713 A.2d 442, 445 (1998); Carmona v. Hagerman Irrigation Co., 125 N.M. 59, 957 P.2d 44, 48 (1998); Mikkelson v. Risovi, 141 N.W.2d 150, 153-54 (N.D.1966); Jesko v. Turk, 421 Pa. 434, 219 A.2d 591, 592 (1966); Ho......
-
Handmaker v. Henney
...and immunity from liability. Carrillo, 114 N.M. at 614, 845 P.2d at 137; accord Carmona v. Hagerman Irrig. Co., 1998-NMSC-007, n. 5, 125 N.M. 59, 957 P.2d 44. We concluded in Carrillo that qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) constitutes immunity from suit because it is "`an ent......
-
Hunnicutt v. Smith
...of Torts § 7 and cmt. j for when a defendant has a duty to protect a plaintiff from third parties); Carmona v. Hagerman Irrigation Co., 957 P.2d 44, 48-49 (N.M. 1998) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 for the tort of attractive nuisance); First Interstate Bank of Gallup v. Foutz......