Lang v. Cruz
Decision Date | 24 August 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 7402,7402 |
Citation | 74 N.M. 473,1964 NMSC 205,394 P.2d 988 |
Parties | William H. LANG and Francis X. Murphy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Alfonso Martinez CRUZ and Clancy Gomez, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
J. Lee Cathey, Carlsbad, Bean & Snead, Roswell, for appellants.
Brown & Brainerd, Roswell, for appellees.
Appellants, William H. Lang and Francis X. Murphy, plaintiffs in the court below, appeal from a summary judgment in favor of appellee Clancy Gomez.
Appellants' amended complaint, which is in two counts, alleged that on July 23, 1962, at about 8:55 p.m., appellants were riding in a pickup truck driven by Zackay T. Robinson in a northerly direction on U. S. Highway 285 at a point about 3.3 miles south of Dexter, New Mexico; that appellee Alfonso Martinez Cruz was driving a farm tractor owned by appellee Gomez and so negligently operated the tractor as to cause a head-on collision between the vehicle driven by Robinson and a vehicle driven by one Francisco Chaves Solis; that at the time of the accident, appellee Cruz was employed by appellee Gomez and was driving the tractor in the course and scope of his employment; that as a proximate result of the negligence of appellee Cruz, appellants received severe and permanent injuries. Each appellant also alleged that the manner of operation of the tractor by appellee Cruz, at the time and place and under the circumstances, was unlawful, reckless and grossly negligent.
In separate answers, appellees Cruz and Gomez admitted the residence of the parties, the time and place of the accident and that appellee Cruz was employed by appellee Gomez, but denied all other allegations contained in appellants' complaint. Appellee Gomez then filed a motion for summary judgment, stating as grounds: That appellants seek recovery against him as the employer of appellee Cruz; that on the day of the accident and at all times material, appellee Cruz was employed as a farm laborer for the purposes of irrigating, chopping and picking cotton; that appellee Cruz was expressly instructed by appellee Gomez not to operate farm machinery of any type, including tractors, at any time; that on the date of the accident and at all times material, appellee Cruz was acting outside the scope of his employment in operating any tractor belonging to appellee Gomex; that, as shown by the depositions on file and affidavits attached, appellee Cruz was operating appellee Gomez' tractor without the knowledge or consent of Gomez, either express or implied, and in direct violation of express instructions by Gomez; that the pleadings on file show the injuries and damages complained of occurred at a point some distance from the place of employment of Cruz, said point being well outside the area of employment.
Attached to the motion for summary judgment were affidavits by appellees Cruz and Gomez relating the following: Alfonso Martinez Cruz is a Mexican National who was employed by Clancy Gomez as an agricultural worker, whose duties consisted of irrigation of alfalfa, chopping and picking cotton, and stacking bales of hay; that in November or December, 1961, all Mexican Nationals in the employ of appellee Gomez were instructed by Gomez that they were prohibited from operating any farm machinery, including tractors; that these instructions were repeated by the Chaves County Farm and Livestock Bureau, Inc., who, in January 1962, asked all Mexican Nationals who worked for Gomez to sign a form, printed in both English and Spanish, stating that they understood that they were not to drive any farm machinery, tractors or other equipment of a related nature.
On July 23, 1962, the date of the accident, appellee Cruz and another Mexican National, Jose Cardona Gallegos, were taken to the alfalfa field at about 6:00 p. m. and instructed to irrigate until about 11:00 p. m., when appellee Gomez would return and they would assist Gomez in baling hay. While irrigating, Cruz found that one of his boots had developed a rip in the heel causing a leak. Gallegos told Cruz that there was another pair of boots at the 'bracero' headquarters, about a mile and a half distant. Appellee Cruz, in his affidavit, states:
'After changing my boots, I again started the tractor and was driving back toward the alfalfa field when the accident occurred between the automobile driven by Mr. Solis and the pick-up driven by Mr. Robinson.
'I knew, at the time I took the tractor in the field, that I was acting against the express orders of Clancy Gomez and that I was not supposed to drive the tractor at all.'
On January 8, 1963, appellants filed a response to the motion for summary judgment, in which they reiterated their position that appellee Cruz was acting within the scope of his employment, even though it may have been in disobedience of express instructions of appellee Gomez. On January 11, 1963, a hearing was held on this motion, in which appellants introduced the transcript of an inquest held over the bodies of Francisco Chaves Solis and Erminda Salazar; and the depositions of appellees Cruz and Gomez which had been taken in cause No. 26026 in the district court of Chaves County, entitled Enadine Romero, Administratrix et al v. Zackay T. Robinson, et al. The transcript of the inquest held July 24, 1962, reveals that appellee Cruz was called as a witness and testified as follows:
In his deposition, appellee Cruz, after testifying as to his job experience and ability as a driver of motor vehicles, stated:
'* * *
'
'
'* * *
'
'* * *
'
On cross-examination, appellee Cruz further testified:
Based upon these affidavits, depositions and transcript of the inquest, the trial court granted summary judgment to appellee Gomez and made the following finding of fact:
Appeal timely followed with appellants relying on one point for reversal, to-wit:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Risk Management Div. v. McBrayer
...City of Tucumcari, 88 N.M. 320, 322, 540 P.2d 250, 252 (Ct.App. 1975) (discussing scope of employment); see also Lang v. Cruz, 74 N.M. 473, 478-81, 394 P.2d 988, 991-94 (1964) (same). The creation of a new standard was consistent with the legislative decision to abandon other common law pre......
-
Leigh Winham, Inc. v. Reynolds Ins. Agency, 82-305
...evidence reasonable men might reach different conclusions from undisputed facts. Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl.1973); Lang v. Cruz, 74 N.M. 473, 394 P.2d 988 (1964). However, here reasonable men could not reach different Reynold's statement establishes that there was no intention to ext......
-
Tinley v. Davis
...Bolt v. Davis, 70 N.M. 449, 374 P.2d 648 (1962); Massey v. Beacon Supply Company, 70 N.M. 149, 371 P.2d 798 (1962); Lang v. Cruz, 74 N.M. 473, 394 P.2d 988 (1964); McCauley v. Ray, 80 N.M. 171, 453 P.2d 192 (1968); McFatridge v. Harlem Globe Trotters, 69 N.M. 271, 365 P.2d 918 (1961); Miera......
-
Runyon v. Reid
...cause of action and that this fact is in defendant's favor. Fraser, 'Judgment Where Facts Not Controverted'; 36 OBJ 723; Lang v. Cruz, 74 N.M. 473, 394 P.2d 988. See also Washington v. World Publishing Co., Okl., 506 P.2d Once defendant has introduced evidentiary materials indicating that t......