Potomac Ins. Co. v. Torres

Decision Date19 April 1965
Docket NumberNo. 7633,7633
PartiesPOTOMAC INSURANCE COMPANY and Leroy J. Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Juan B. TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

McAtee, Toulouse, Marchiondo, Ruud & Gallagher, Mary C. Walters, Albuquerque, for appellant.

Menig & Sager, Albuquerque, for appellees.

NOBLE, Justice.

Benjamin Torres, an unemancipated minor under 18 years of age, stole an automobile and, in attempting to evade a police pursuit, drove at speeds in excess of 60 miles per hour on crowded business streets. During the chase, he drove the car into the rear of Dr. Miller's automobile, which was stopped at a traffic light, and damaged it to the extent of $387.46. Potomac Insurance Company, having paid for the repair of the Miller car, with the exception of $50 which was deductible from its physical damage insurance policy, is now subrogated to Dr. Miller's cause of action. The trial court found that the damage to the Miller car was the malicious and willful act of Benjamin Torres and that at all times material he lived with his parents. Judgment was rendered against the minor and his father for these damages, and the father has appealed.

The pertinent portion of Sec. 22-21-1 N.M.S.A. 1953, which formed the basis of the suit reads:

'* * * any person * * * shall be entitled to recover damages in an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) * * * from the * * * parents of any unemancipated minor under the age of eighteen years, living with the parents, who shall maliciously or wilfully damage or destroy property * * * belonging to such * * * person * * *.'

It is not disputed that approximately one week prior to the date of the automobile collision, Benjamin Torres was taken to the Bernalillo County Detention Home for juveniles and thence removed to a hospital for treatment for injuries sustained. In violation of the order of the detention home, he returned to his residence upon being released from the hospital on about October 19, 1962, and remained there with his parents until October 23, 1962, when the acts complained of occurred.

This appeal presents the issue as to whether the trial court properly concluded that the Miller car was maliciously and willfully damaged by the minor while living with his parents within the meaning of $22-21-1, supra. The defendant contends that because the minor had been confined in the juvenile detention home; because he should have been returned to it upon release by the hospital; and because he was still under the jurisdiction of the detention home, he was not 'living with his parents' within the meaning of the statute. We find the contention to be without merit.

Our statute constitutes a legislative recognition of the moral duty owed by a parent to exercise reasonable care so as to control his minor child and prevent him from maliciously or willfully damaging the property of another. This...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • People v. Adams, Docket No. 3940
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 24 d4 Junho d4 1971
    ...a somewhat more evil state of mind than wilfulness, the terms are virtually synonymous in the law. See Potomac Insurance Company v. Torres (1965), 75 N.M. 129, 401 P.2d 308; People v. Morrin (1971), 31 Mich.App. 301, 187 N.W.2d 434.8 See People v. Morrin, fn. 7, Supra.9 See, generally, Note......
  • United Nuclear Corp. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 15 d2 Outubro d2 1985
    ...in utter disregard for the consequences, * * *.' " Id. at 108, 560 P.2d at 172 (emphasis added), quoting Potomac Insurance Co. v. Torres, 75 N.M. 129, 131-32, 401 P.2d 308, 309 (1965). Curtiss upheld an award of punitive damages where the insurer intentionally refused to pay on a health pol......
  • State v. Gattis
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 26 d3 Novembro d3 1986
    ...the intentional doing of a harmful act without just cause or excuse, or in utter disregard of the consequences. Potomac Insurance Co. v. Torres, 75 N.M. 129, 401 P.2d 308 (1965). Some courts have held that statutes are not overbroad if they require a specific intent to threaten, harass, ann......
  • James D., In re
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 4 d5 Fevereiro d5 1983
    ...readily distinguishable from that of parents in Repko v. Seriani, 3 Conn.Cir. 374, 214 A.2d 843 (1965), and Potomac Insurance Company v. Torres, 75 N.M. 129, 401 P.2d 308 (1965), in both of which parents were held responsible notwithstanding the fact that the child in question was committed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT