Celaya v. Hall

• Decision Date: 29 April 2003
• Docket Number: No. 22,211.,22,211.
• Citation: Celaya v. Hall, 71 P.3d 1281, 134 N.M. 19, 2003 NMCA 86 (N.M. App. 2003)
• Parties: Jesus CELAYA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lin HALL, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

71 P.3d 1281

134 N.M. 19

2003 NMCA 86

Jesus CELAYA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lin HALL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22,211.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

April 29, 2003.

Certiorari Granted June 25, 2003.

John Wayne Higgins, John Wayne Higgins & Associates, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.

Emily A. Franke, Paul T. Yarbrough, Butt, Thornton & Baehr, P.C., Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee.

Certiorari Granted, No. 28,076, June 25, 2003.

OPINION

FRY, Judge.

{1} This case raises questions about the limits of immunity for public employees under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 41-4-1 to -29 (1976, as amended through 2001) (the Act), and requires us to clarify the circumstances under which a public employee acts within the scope of duties. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant, a volunteer chaplain for a county sheriff department, on the basis that he was a public employee acting within the scope of his duties at the time of his alleged tortious conduct, and therefore Plaintiff's suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations in the Tort Claims Act. The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff filed his claim against Defendant more than two years after the relevant incident. Because there are genuine factual questions regarding Defendant's status as a public employee, as well as the scope of his duties, we reverse summary judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

{2} Defendant Lin Hall volunteered as chaplain for the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department (Department). The Department provided him a "take-home" vehicle to assist him in performing chaplain tasks. Defendant's volunteer work included providing spiritual counseling to crime victims and their families, as well as to individual sheriff's deputies. At times, Defendant also provided assistance to civilians " `as needed' [and] within his discretion," for example, when he was driving the Department vehicle and he came upon a stranded motorist. During the same time period that he served as chaplain, Defendant also had a full-time, compensated position with an entity that was completely unrelated to the Department.

{3} At the time of the accident giving rise to this litigation, Plaintiff Jesus Celaya was sixteen years old and worked part-time for Wal-Mart gathering shopping carts in the store parking lot. In November 1996, Defendant was running a personal errand at the store where Plaintiff worked. Defendant was driving the Department vehicle in the parking lot when the car rolled over Plaintiff's foot.

{4} In October 1999, almost three years after the accident, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the County of Bernalillo (County), the Department, and Defendant for injuries he suffered as a result of the parking lot accident. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based upon Plaintiff's failure to comply with the two-year statute of limitations in Section 41-4-15 of the Act. On Plaintiff's motion, the trial court dismissed the claims against the County and the Department but allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint against Defendant. Plaintiff argued that at the time of the accident, Defendant was acting outside the scope of his volunteer duties and therefore was not covered by the Act. Defendant countered that he was acting within the scope of his duties as a Department employee so that the Act's statute of limitations barred the claims against him. The trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment based upon Plaintiff's failure to file his action within the Act's statute of limitations. Plaintiff appeals.

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

{5} "Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 1998-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 396, 970 P.2d 582. We consider the facts in the light most " `favorable to support a trial on the issues because the purpose of summary judgment is not to preclude a trial on the merits if a triable issue of fact exists.'" Madsen v. Scott, 1999-NMSC-042, ¶ 7, 128 N.M. 255, 992 P.2d 268 (quoting Ruiz v. Garcia, 115 N.M. 269, 271, 850 P.2d 972, 974 (1993)). The "party opposing a motion for summary judgment is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists." Nat'l Excess Ins. Co. v. Bingham, 106 N.M. 325, 328, 742 P.2d 537, 540 (Ct.App. 1987). We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Self, 1998-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 396, 970 P.2d 582.

Public Employee Status

{6} We first address whether Defendant met the Act's definition of "public employee." The Act defines "public employee" as "any officer, employee or servant of a governmental entity, excluding independent contractors." § 41-4-3(F). This definition is followed by an enumerated list of categories of persons who qualify as "public employees," a list that includes "persons acting on behalf or in service of a governmental entity in any official capacity, whether with or without compensation." § 41-4-3(F)(3). Thus, at first glance, "public employee" appears to include Defendant—both parties' factual accounts reflect that Defendant sometimes performed chaplain tasks on behalf of the Department. Plaintiff argues, however, that Defendant acted as an independent contractor when he performed the role of Department chaplain. The plain language of the Act excludes "independent contractors." § 41-4-3(F); see also High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-050, ¶ 5, 126 N.M. 413, 970 P.2d 599 (setting out principles of statutory construction). We must therefore consider whether there is a genuine issue of fact whether Defendant was an independent contractor and therefore excluded from the Act.

{7} Courts generally look to agency law to distinguish employees from independent contractors. See, e.g., Harger v. Structural Servs., Inc., 1996-NMSC-018, 121 N.M. 657, 664, 916 P.2d 1324, 1331 (adopting the Restatement (Second) of Agency Section 220 approach to identify an independent contractor for purposes of Workers Compensation Act); Houghland v. Grant, 119 N.M. 422, 426-27, 891 P.2d 563, 567-68 (Ct.App.1995) (utilizing agency law doctrine of apparent authority to determine whether emergency room doctor was an independent contractor for purpose of Tort Claims Act); see also Madsen, 1999-NMSC-042, ¶¶ 8-15, 128 N.M. 255, 992 P.2d 268 (applying agency principles to determine whether homeowner had employer-employee relationship with housesitter). We find relevant the well-established agency doctrine that an employer's actual control or right to control an individual carries great weight in determining whether the individual is an employee or an independent contractor. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 (1958); Savinsky v. Bromley Group, Ltd., 106 N.M. 175, 176, 740 P.2d 1159, 1160 (Ct.App.1987); see also Armijo v. Dep't of Health & Env't, 108 N.M. 616, 620, 775 P.2d 1333, 1337 (Ct.App.1989) (considering lack of right to control as a factor in concluding that community mental health facility was not a state agency and its employees in Tort Claims Act context were not public employees). In most settings, the hallmark of an independent contractor is that "the person who engages the contractor may direct the result to be accomplished but does not have the right to control the manner in which the details of the work are to be performed." UJI 13-404 NMRA 2003. But see Houghland, 119 N.M. at 426, 891 P.2d at 567 (criticizing the right to control test as inappropriate in the context of hospital emergency rooms).

{8} Turning now to the specifics of this case, Plaintiff contends the Department had no control over the details of Defendant's work. According to Plaintiff, Defendant had sole discretion as to "whether, when and how" to provide chaplain-related services. To support his argument, Plaintiff relies on the affidavit of former Department Sheriff Ray Gallagher, which stated that the "Department does not control the manner in which the details of [Defendant's] work is performed." Defendant counters it is undisputed that a previous sheriff appointed him to the chaplain position, that he acted in an official capacity "on behalf of and in service of the Department, that the acting sheriff supervised him at the time of the accident, that the Department provided him a vehicle and other equipment to do his job, and that he was on-call "at all times." Defendant submitted an affidavit from Sheriff Joe Bowdich, acting sheriff at the time of the accident, which states that Sheriff Bowdich supervised Defendant's "[c]haplain duties." These facts and affidavits do not definitively answer the question of whether the Department had the right to control the details of Defendant's work. Defendant argues that former Sheriff Gallagher's affidavit has no relevance and creates no issue of fact because Gallagher was not sheriff at the time of the accident. We disagree. The affidavit is relevant to whether the Department controlled Defendant's work in the past, which in turn affects the analysis of the relationship between the Department and Defendant. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(2)(i) (identifying "whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant" as a factor in distinguishing servant from independent contractor). There is a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendant was an independent contractor because of the Department's lack of actual control over, or right to control, the details of his work. Although the right to control test may be subject to the same criticism in the context of voluntary chaplains as has been made in the context of emergency room doctors, see Houghland, 119 N.M. at 426,891 P.2d at 567, we believe that it has a place in this case and that factual questions surround it. The finder of fact must resolve this dispute.

...