This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A student was struck by a vehicle near a crosswalk on Lomas Boulevard, adjacent to Manzano High School, after being dismissed from detention. The crosswalk and accompanying signals were installed and maintained by the City of Albuquerque, not the school board. The signals had stopped flashing by the time of the accident (paras 1, 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the School Board of Albuquerque Public School System, finding no liability under the Tort Claims Act (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the school board was negligent for failing to ensure the flashing signals operated while students were under its control and for not maintaining or warning about the absence of school crossing signs (para 5).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the City of Albuquerque, not the school board, was responsible for maintaining the crosswalk, signals, and signs, and that the school board's immunity under the Tort Claims Act was not waived (paras 3, 7).
Legal Issues
- Did the school board have a duty to maintain the crosswalk, signals, and signs under the Tort Claims Act?
- Was the school board's immunity waived under Section 41-4-11(A) of the Tort Claims Act?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the School Board of Albuquerque Public School System (para 1).
Reasons
Per Bivins J. (Alarid C.J. and Apodaca J. concurring):
The court held that the school board had no responsibility to maintain the crosswalk, signals, or signs under the Tort Claims Act. The relevant statute, Section 66-7-336(A), places the responsibility for establishing and maintaining school crossings on the state highway commission or local authorities, with the school superintendent's role limited to providing advice. This advisory role does not impose a duty of maintenance on the school board (paras 7-11).
The court distinguished this case from prior decisions, such as Schleft v. Board of Education, where liability extended to school grounds, and Bober v. New Mexico State Fair, which involved premises liability. Here, the alleged dangerous condition was outside the school grounds, and the school board had no control over or responsibility for the crosswalk (paras 12-14).
The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that legislative amendments to Section 66-7-336(B) implied a maintenance duty under Subsection A. The court found no such duty had ever existed under Subsection A, and the legislature's amendments to Subsection B clarified that maintenance responsibility lies with counties or municipalities (paras 15-17).
The court concluded that the school board's immunity under the Tort Claims Act was not waived because it had no statutory or common law duty to maintain the crosswalk or signals (paras 19-20).