Supreme Court of New Mexico

Decision Information

Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Elliott v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc. - cited by 5 documents
Williamson v. Smith - cited by 113 documents

Decision Content

TAOS SKI VALLEY, INC. V. ELLIOTT, 1972-NMSC-037, 83 N.M. 763, 497 P.2d 974 (S. Ct. 1972)

TAOS SKI VALLEY, INC., a corporation, and, AMERICAN
EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation,
Petitioners,
vs.
ELIZABETH A. ELLIOTT, Respondent

No. 9434

SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO

1972-NMSC-037, 83 N.M. 763, 497 P.2d 974

June 02, 1972

Original Certiorari Proceeding

COUNSEL

MITCHELL, MITCHELL & ALLEY, Santa Fe, New Mexico, MONTGOMERY, FEDERICI, ANDREWS, HANNAHS & MORRIS, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for Petitioners.

MATIAS A. ZAMORA, Santa Fe, New Mexico, RUSSELL MOORE, Kelleher & McLeod, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Respondent.

JUDGES

McMANUS, Justice, wrote the opinion.

WE CONCUR:

J. C. Compton, C.J., LaFel E. Oman, J., Donnan Stephenson, J., Samuel Z. Montoya, J., not participating.

AUTHOR: MCMANUS

OPINION

McMANUS, Justice.

{1} By decision dated March 3, 1972, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's directed verdict in favor of the defendants herein, and ordered a new trial. Elliott v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 83 N.M. 575, 494 P.2d 1392. On March 23, 1972, this Court granted certiorari. After a careful review of the opinion, briefs and all pertinent material, we are of the opinion that the writ of certiorari was improvidently issued and we now affirm the decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

{2} In the decision of the Court of Appeals there appears language as follows:

"Taos Ski Valley raised the defense of assumption of risk. We cannot determine whether the directed verdict included this defense. However, since this case must be tried over, the defense is controlled by Williamson v. Smith, 83 N.M. 336, 491 P.2d 1147 (1971)."

{3} In order that there be no confusion involved we merely state that Williamson, supra, as concerns the defense of assumption of risk, unequivocally stated that such defense was prospective from the date of the {*764} Williamson decision, December 13, 1971, and not retroactive.

{4} The writ previously granted is hereby quashed.

{5} IT IS SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

J. C. Compton, C.J., LaFel E. Oman, J., Donnan Stephenson, J., Samuel Z. Montoya, J., not participating.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.