State ex Rel. Risk Management Div. of Dept. of Finance & Admin. v. Gathman-Matotan Architects

Citation653 P.2d 166,98 N.M. 790,1982 NMCA 130
Decision Date10 August 1982
Docket Number5670,Nos. 5671,GATHMAN-MATOTAN,5672,s. 5671
PartiesSTATE of N.M., ex rel., RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION OF DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC., & W.C. Kruger and Associates Architects-Planners, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Armour World Wide Glass Co., Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Central Glass & Mirror Co., Inc., John Doe Insurance Co., International Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Defendants. Jimmy URIOSTE, Special Administrator of the Estate of Mario Urioste, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN OF THE PENITENTIARY OF N.M., Third-Party Plaintiff & Defendant- Appellant, and State of New Mexico Corrections & Criminal Rehabilitation Department of the State of New Mexico; Bruce King, Governor of the State of New Mexico; the Secretary of Corrections & Criminal Rehabilitation, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs, and Gathman-Matotan Architects and Planners, Inc., & International Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Defendants-Third Party Defendants-Appellees. Jimmy URIOSTE, Special Administrator of The Estate of Mario Urioste, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. STATE of New Mexico CORRECTIONS & CRIMINAL REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT of the State of New Mexico; Bruce King, Governor of the State of New Mexico; the Secretary of Corrections & Criminal Rehabilitation, Defendants-Third- Party Plaintiffs Defendants-Appellants, and Warden of the Penitentiary of New Mexico, Third-Party Plaintiff Defendant, Gathman-Matotan Architects and Planners, Inc., & International Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Defendants-Third Party Defendants-Appellees.
CourtCourt of Appeals of New Mexico
Eric D. Lanphere, Donald C. Schutte, J. Victor Pongetti, Johnson & Lanphere, P.A., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee W.C. Kruger & Assoc. & Architects Planners, Inc
OPINION

LOPEZ, Judge.

We consolidate the interlocutory appeals taken in State v. Gathman-Matotan and Urioste v. Warden of the Penitentiary of New Mexico. In each case, the various state parties alleged a cause of action for breach of implied warranty of sufficiency of plans and specifications against Gathman-Matotan Architects and Planners, Inc. (Gathman), and W.C. Kruger and Associates Architects-Planners, Inc. (Kruger). In both cases, the trial court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. We affirm.

In 1977, the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration, Property Control Division, contracted with Kruger to prepare an analysis of necessary renovations and improvements at the penitentiary to keep it a viable institution. Included in the first phase of renovations were recommendations for improving the security of the central control area of the prison. The recommendations included remodeling a bay window in the central control area. The remodeling consisted of replacing a steel gridwork which framed small panes of glass, with large sheets of bullet-resistant glass.

The New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration, Property Control Division, then contracted with Gathman for architectural services for the penitentiary renovations based on the Kruger report. The sheets of bullet-resistant glass were installed in the central control area prior to February 2, 1980.

On February 2 and 3, 1980, the prisoners at the penitentiary staged a riot, during which prisoners were killed and injured by other prisoners, correctional officers were injured, and there was extensive property damage to the institution. The prisoners gained access to the central control area by breaking the newly-installed glass, and thereby took over the control area.

The Risk Management Division of the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration filed suit in Bernalillo County district court against Gathman and Kruger alleging negligence, breach of contract, breach of an implied warranty to use reasonable skill and breach of an implied warranty of "sufficiency of the recommendations, designs, plans and specifications to provide a control center adequate to serve as a central stronghold in the event of an inmate uprising."

The Urioste suit is a consolidation of three suits filed in Santa Fe County district court against various state parties for damages for wrongful death and personal injuries resulting from the riot. The state parties filed third party complaints against Gathman and Kruger alleging causes of action similar to those stated in its separate suit. The three plaintiffs then amended their complaints to assert claims against the third-party defendants. The state parties then filed cross-claims against the third-party defendants.

In each case, the trial court dismissed the cause of action for breach of an implied warranty of the sufficiency of the plans and specifications, for failure to state a cause of action on which relief could be granted, pursuant to N.M.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6), N.M.S.A.1978 (1980 Repl.Pamph.). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the well pleaded facts alleged in the complaint are taken as true. Runyan v. Jaramillo, 90 N.M. 629, 567 P.2d 478 (1977). The motion should not be granted unless the court determines that the plaintiffs cannot obtain relief under any state of facts provable under the alleged claims. Eldridge v. Sandoval County, 92 N.M. 152, 584 P.2d 199 (Ct.App.1978).

The question on appeal is whether New Mexico recognizes a cause of action against an architect for breach of an implied warranty to furnish plans and specifications adequate for a specified purpose. The question is one of first impression in New Mexico. See Staley v. New, 56 N.M. 756, 250 P.2d 893 (1952), in which the New Mexico supreme court hypothesized such a warranty in dicta, but did not decide whether the warranty should be recognized in New Mexico. The decisions on this issue from courts of other jurisdictions have not been uniform. The appellants are careful to limit the question to an implied warranty under contract, as opposed to the issue of strict liability in tort. Therefore, we limit our discussion accordingly.

New Mexico has recognized an implied warranty to use reasonable skill under contract law, set out in N.M.U.J.I.Civ. 8.26, N.M.S.A.1978 (Repl.Pamph.1980). Garcia v. Color Tile Distributing Company, 75 N.M. 570, 408 P.2d 145 (1965); Clear v. Patterson, 80 N.M. 654, 459 P.2d 358 (Ct.App.1969). Instruction 8.26 states that

When a person undertakes to practice a trade or to do a kind of work which either requires some learning or special training or experience, he is obligated to exercise that degree of skill which a reasonably prudent person skilled in such work would exercise in those circumstances. The gist of the implied warranty stated in instruction 8.26 is that a person who contracts to do work requiring certain skills must not be negligent in exercising those skills. In a true warranty setting, only the results of the work would be compared with the work which was contracted to be done. Instruction 8.26 requires a showing of negligence in the performance of the work which was contracted to be done. Although the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • SME Indus., Inc. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • June 26, 2001
    ...... Plateau Mining Co. v. Utah Div. of State Lands & Forestry, 802 P.2d 720, 725 ...'s implied warranty claim, holding that architects cannot be liable under a theory of implied ....Y.S.2d 832, 835 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1977) ; State ex rel. Risk Mgmt. Div. v. Gathman-Matotan Architects & ......
  • RJ Longo Const. Co. v. Transit America, Civ. No. 93-3355(JCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • April 10, 1996
    ...... must apply the substantive law of the forum state, see Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 ...661, 666, 541 A.2d 258 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 113 N.J. 367, 550 A.2d 473 ...Gathman-Matotan Architects and Planners, Inc., 98 N.M. 790, 653 ......
  • Sime v. Tvenge Associates Architects & Planners, P.C., 920009
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • June 25, 1992
    ...... planned for its location in the San Haven State Institution, causing outside vehicle exhaust ...v. Gathman-Matotan, etc., 98 N.M. 790, 653 P.2d 166, 170 ......
  • Chubb Group of Ins. Companies v. C.F. Murphy & Associates, Inc., WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 16, 1983
    ...... of their nine-count petition for failure to state a cause of action for damages arising from the ... State ex rel. Schweitzer v. Greene, 438 S.W.2d 229 (Mo.1969) ....         As to architects and contractors, the court in Aetna Ins. Co. v. ... In State ex rel. Risk Management Div. of Dep't of Fin. and Admin. v. ...of Dep't of Fin. and Admin. v. Gathman-Matotan Architects and Planners, Inc., supra; Milau ......
  • 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