AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, an employee of Albuquerque Public Schools (APS), was driving to a work-related event in an APS vehicle when her vehicle was struck by the Defendant's vehicle, who was also an APS employee and claimed to be on his way to a work-related activity at the time of the accident (paras 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant waived the affirmative defense that the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) provides Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy by failing to raise it in his answer; contended there were material issues of fact; and argued that the doctrine of transferred intent applies in civil cases (para 4).
• Defendant: Filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff was limited to remedies available under the WCA and supplemented this motion later. Defendant did not initially claim the WCA's exclusivity in his answer but raised it in a motion for summary judgment (paras 3, 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant waived the affirmative defense that the WCA provides Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy by failing to raise it in his answer.
• Whether there were material issues of fact that precluded summary judgment.
• Whether the doctrine of transferred intent applies in this civil case.

Disposition

• The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and denied the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (para 1).

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (with RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring): The court concluded that the Defendant did not waive the affirmative defense of WCA exclusivity by not raising it in his initial answer, as he raised it upon learning of the situation and the court allowed amendment by interlineation (paras 5-7). The court also found that there were no material issues of fact that precluded summary judgment, as the Defendant was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, regardless of his personal motives or negligence (paras 11-13). Lastly, the court determined that the doctrine of transferred intent did not apply because there was no evidence that the Defendant intentionally caused the accident (para 14).