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 plaintiff sustained a head injury after being thrown from his motorized scooter in a single-vehicle accident on a City street. He alleged that the City of Albuquerque was negligent in failing to maintain a pothole and a malfunctioning traffic signal, which he claimed caused the accident. The plaintiff was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The jury found in favor of the City, concluding that the City was not negligent (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in admitting evidence of his failure to wear a helmet and in instructing the jury on his duty to mitigate damages. He also contended that the admission of evidence regarding his medicinal marijuana use and opioid addiction was an abuse of discretion (paras 1, 8-9).
- Defendant-Appellee: Argued that the helmet evidence was relevant to the claimed injuries and that the jury instructions were appropriate. The City also defended the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's drug use as relevant to his cognitive impairment (paras 3, 18).
Legal Issues
- Whether the admission of evidence that the plaintiff was not wearing a helmet was so prejudicial that it required reversal despite the jury instruction (para 10).
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the plaintiff's marijuana use and history of opioid addiction (para 10).
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision (para 22).
Reasons
Per Yohalem J. (Henderson and Wray JJ. concurring):
The court found that any error in admitting the helmet evidence was harmless because the jury was properly instructed not to consider it in determining negligence. The presumption is that the jury followed the court's instructions, and the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the delay in giving the instruction caused prejudice (paras 11-17). Regarding the drug use evidence, the court found no abuse of discretion in its admission, as the expert testimony did not entirely rule out a connection to the plaintiff's impairment. The plaintiff's argument that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative was not preserved for appeal (paras 18-19). The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claim of cumulative error, as no prejudicial errors were found (para 21).