Morris v. Giant Four Corners, Inc.

• Citation: 498 P.3d 238
• Decision Date: 19 July 2021
• Docket Number: No. S-1-SC-37997,S-1-SC-37997
• Parties: Franklin J. MORRIS, as personal representative of the wrongful death estate of Marcellino Morris, Jr. (deceased), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GIANT FOUR CORNERS, INC., d/b/a Giant #7251, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of New Mexico

498 P.3d 238

Franklin J. MORRIS, as personal representative of the wrongful death estate of Marcellino Morris, Jr. (deceased), Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.GIANT FOUR CORNERS, INC., d/b/a Giant #7251, Defendant-Appellee.

No. S-1-SC-37997

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Filing Date: July 19, 2021

The Law Office of Sean P. McAfee, Sean P. McAfee, Albuquerque, NM, Davis Kelin Law Firm, LLC, Zackeree S. Kelin, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant

Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin, & Robb, P.A., Andrew G. Schultz, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee

BACON, Justice.

{1} This matter comes before this Court upon a question certified to us by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Specifically, the Tenth Circuit asked this Court to address the following:

Under New Mexico law, which recognizes negligent entrustment of chattel as a viable cause of action, does a commercial gasoline vendor owe a duty of care to a third party using the roadway to refrain from selling gasoline to a driver it knows or should know to be intoxicated?

{2} Upon review, we answer this question in the affirmative.

I. BACKGROUND

{3} Plaintiff Franklin J. Morris, as Personal Representative of the Wrongful Death Estate of Marcellino Morris, Jr., originally filed his complaint in the District Court of the Navajo Nation. The district court found on summary judgment that Plaintiff's complaint was barred because the Navajo Nation's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury had lapsed.¹ Plaintiff filed a parallel action in the New Mexico Eleventh Judicial District Court alleging, in part, that Defendant, Giant Four Corners, negligently entrusted gasoline to an intoxicated driver who subsequently killed Plaintiff's son in an auto accident. Defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.

A. The Accident

{4} In his pleadings before the United States District Court, Plaintiff provided the following factual background of the events in question. On December 29 and 30, 2011, during a night of drinking extending into the early morning, Andy Denny drove his automobile until it ran out of gasoline near Tohatchi, New Mexico. Denny and his passenger walked to Defendant's gas station in Tohatchi to purchase gasoline so that Denny could continue driving. Upon arrival at the gas station, both Denny and his passenger were intoxicated.

{5} While at the gas station, Denny learned that there were no empty gas cans for sale. Denny and his passenger decided to purchase a gallon of water and empty it to use as a container for gasoline. Initially, because they were intoxicated, the clerk working at the gas station would not sell anything to Denny or his passenger, but the clerk ultimately sold the gallon of water and a gallon of gasoline to Denny. After filling the gallon container with gas, Denny and his passenger left on foot and walked back to Denny's vehicle. Denny and his passenger then drove back to the gas station and purchased an additional nine gallons of gasoline for Denny's car.

{6} After driving away from the gas station, Denny dropped off his passenger. He then returned to the highway. As he drove, his vehicle crossed the centerline and then collided with the oncoming vehicle of Marcellino Morris. Morris was killed in the collision.

{7} An officer responded to the scene of the accident where he observed signs that Denny was intoxicated. The officer also observed that Denny was repeatedly dozing off. At the scene of the accident, Denny took a breathalyzer test "and blew a 0.080 BAC." Nearly four hours after the accident, a blood sample revealed Denny's blood alcohol concentration of 0.176. Denny was arrested for driving while under the influence, vehicular homicide, and driving left of center.

B. The Federal Court Proceedings

{8} Plaintiff's Complaint for Wrongful Death included claims against Defendant² for vicarious liability for negligent entrustment of chattel³ and direct liability for negligent hiring, training, and supervision. Toward the outset of the litigation in the United States District Court, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment on his negligent entrustment of chattel claim. The district court denied the motion because the facts were not sufficiently developed but assumed for purposes of the motion before it that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty "to refrain from making an entrustment that created an appreciable risk of harm." Subsequently, Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that New Mexico law does not create a duty to refrain from selling gasoline to an intoxicated driver. The United States District Court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings. In its order, the district court recognized that New Mexico has adopted the doctrine of negligent entrustment of chattel. The district court also acknowledged that, in the context of negligent entrustment, an owner or controller of chattel has "a duty to others not to give control of a dangerous instrumentality to a person incapable of using it carefully." The district court, however, declined to find that Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff, because no New Mexico statutes or cases specifically imposed a duty "to refrain from selling gasoline to an allegedly intoxicated driver." The district court also observed that the New Mexico Supreme Court, rather than the federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction, was better positioned to resolve this question of state law. Plaintiff appealed the order of the United States District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which in turn certified the question to this Court pursuant to Rule 12-607(A), (C) NMRA.

II. DUTY

{9} The Tenth Circuit asks this Court to address, in the context of our adoption of negligent entrustment of chattel, whether a vendor of gasoline has a duty to refrain from selling gasoline to a driver it knows or should know is intoxicated. To answer this question, we must examine whether Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff to refrain from selling gasoline to a driver Defendant knew or had reason to know was intoxicated. This is a question previously unanswered by this Court.

{10} The determination of whether a duty exists is a matter of law and a question of policy made "with reference to legal precedent, statutes, and other principles comprising the law." Calkins v. Cox Estates , 1990-NMSC-044, ¶ 8, 110 N.M. 59, 792 P.2d 36. "A duty may exist based on statutory law; based on common law that has created an affirmative duty toward a specific individual or group of individuals; or based on a general negligence standard, which requires an individual to exercise reasonable care in his dealings and activities with the public." Lessard v. Coronado Paint & Decorating Ctr., Inc. , 2007-NMCA-122, ¶ 30, 142 N.M. 583, 168 P.3d 155 (considering whether an employer owed a duty to members of the motoring public when the employer hired the employee to drive).

{11} In determining "whether a duty of care exists or should be expanded or contracted," a court's analysis "should focus on policy considerations when determining the scope or existence of a duty of care." Rodriguez v. Del Sol Shopping Ctr. Assocs., L.P. , 2014-NMSC-014, ¶ 19, 326 P.3d 465. When deciding the scope of a duty or whether an existing duty should be limited, a court must "articulate specific policy reasons" for its conclusion. Id. ¶ 1 ; see also Restatement (Third) of Torts: Duty § 7 cmt. j (Am. L. Inst. 2010) ("[A no-duty] ruling should be explained and justified based on articulated policies or principles that justify exempting these actors from liability or modifying the ordinary duty of reasonable care."). When assessing the existence or scope of a duty, a court does not analyze foreseeability or weigh the evidence. Rodriguez , 2014-NMSC-014, ¶¶ 1, 19, 326 P.3d 465. "Foreseeability is a fact-intensive inquiry relevant only to breach of duty and legal cause considerations" and is often left to the jury. Id. ¶ 1 (holding that when a court considers foreseeability, "it is to analyze no-breach-of-duty or no-legal-cause as a matter of law, not whether a duty exists"). Similarly, "[c]ourts should not engage in weighing evidence to determine whether a duty of care exists or should be expanded or contracted—weighing evidence is the [province] of the jury ...." Id. ¶ 19.

{12} The question before us focuses on the duties arising from negligent entrustment. We must determine, de novo, whether New Mexico's legal precedent, statutes, or other principles of law impose a duty in the context of a commercial gasoline vendor selling gas to an intoxicated driver. See Calkins , 1990-NMSC-044, ¶ 8, 110 N.M. 59, 792 P.2d 36 ("The court must determine as a matter of law whether a particular defendant owes a duty to a particular plaintiff.").

A. Negligent Entrustment of Chattel

{13} For decades, New Mexico courts have recognized negligent entrustment and negligent entrustment of chattel as viable causes of action. See McCarson v. Foreman , 1984-NMCA-129, ¶¶ 10, 13, 102 N.M. 151, 692 P.2d 537. In McCarson , the Court of Appeals recognized that "[g]eneral principles of negligence are relevant to the determination of negligent entrustment." Id. ¶ 13. Under those general principles, a finding of negligence requires that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty. Herrera v. Quality Pontiac , 2003-NMSC-018, ¶ 6, 134 N.M. 43, 73 P.3d 181 ("Generally, a negligence claim requires the existence of a duty from a defendant to a plaintiff, breach of that duty, which is typically based upon a standard of reasonable care, and the breach being a proximate cause and cause in fact of the plaintiff's damages."); Baxter v. Noce , 1988-NMSC-024, ¶ 11, 107 N.M. 48, 752 P.2d 240 ("A duty is a legal obligation to conform to a certain standard of conduct to reduce the risk of harm to an individual or class or persons.").

{14} In adopting the tort of negligent entrustment of chattel, New Mexico courts have relied on Permitting...