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 at a Circle K convenience store in Albuquerque, was attacked and injured by three individuals while working alone on the night shift. The Plaintiff alleged that the store's owner and lessee failed to provide adequate security measures, resulting in severe and permanent injuries (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The trial court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against Edgemont Realty Partners, Ltd. for failure to state a claim and awarded the Plaintiff attorney's fees incurred in obtaining and defending a default judgment that was later set aside (paras 1, 6-7).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that Edgemont Realty Partners, Ltd., as the owner of the premises, had a duty to provide adequate security measures to protect employees from foreseeable harm. The Plaintiff also claimed that Edgemont's failure to provide such security constituted negligence and outrageous conduct (paras 3-4, 10-11, 18).
- Defendant (Edgemont Realty Partners, Ltd.): Contended that it had no legal duty to protect the Plaintiff because it did not retain possession or control of the premises leased to Circle K. It also argued that the Plaintiff's claims failed to meet the legal standard for negligence or outrageous conduct. Additionally, Edgemont challenged the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the Plaintiff (paras 7, 12-13, 22-25).
Legal Issues
- Did Edgemont Realty Partners, Ltd. owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff as a nonpossessory landowner?
- Was the Plaintiff's amended complaint sufficient to state a claim for negligence or outrageous conduct?
- Was the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the Plaintiff proper?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims against Edgemont Realty Partners, Ltd. (para 27).
- The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the Plaintiff (para 27).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Bivins and Pickard JJ. concurring):
Duty of Care: The Court held that Edgemont, as a nonpossessory landowner, did not owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff failed to allege that Edgemont retained possession or control of the premises or refused to authorize reasonable security measures. The Court emphasized that liability for premises-related injuries generally requires possession or control of the property (paras 12-16).
Negligence and Outrageous Conduct: The Court found that the Plaintiff's allegations did not establish the elements of negligence, including the existence of a duty owed by Edgemont. Similarly, the Plaintiff's claim for outrageous conduct failed because there was no showing of extreme or outrageous behavior by Edgemont (paras 10-11, 18-21).
Attorney's Fees: The Court upheld the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the Plaintiff as a condition for setting aside the default judgment. It reasoned that the trial court acted within its discretion under procedural rules allowing such conditions when granting relief from a judgment (paras 22-25).
Appellate Costs and Fees: The Court denied the Plaintiff's request for appellate attorney's fees and costs, as the Plaintiff did not prevail on the appeal and failed to cite authority supporting such an award (para 26).