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 decedent, an employee of Convergys, was hit and killed by a city bus across from the property owned by Spirit CS Las Cruces NM LLC and leased to Convergys Corporation and Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. The incident occurred in a rural, largely undeveloped area, raising concerns about the safety of employees and others due to increased traffic and uncertainty from the property's development. The plaintiff, representing the decedent's estate, alleged negligence by the defendants for failing to account for the safety of those using and visiting the property, specifically criticizing the lack of safety measures such as light poles, lighting, a crosswalk, and other traffic control devices (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the defendants failed to consider the safety impact of the property's development on employees and visitors, specifically lacking adequate safety measures like lighting and traffic control devices to ensure pedestrian safety (paras 3-4, 6).
• Defendants (Convergys and Spirit): Contended they owed no duty to the decedent, focusing on the assertion that they were not responsible for installing safety measures on the public road and right-of-way. Spirit additionally argued it had no duty as a nonpossessory landlord (paras 4-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the landlord and tenant owed a duty to the decedent to provide safety features on the premises adjacent to a roadway (para 1).
• Whether Spirit, as a nonpossessory landlord, had a duty of care to the decedent based on its retained right to reenter the property for safety purposes (para 21).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, finding that both the landlord (Spirit) and the tenant (Convergys) did owe a duty to the decedent. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion (para 26).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Jane B. Yohalem and Gerald E. Baca concurring, based its decision on the principles of premises liability and the duty of care owed by landowners and occupiers. The Court referenced Rodriguez v. Del Sol Shopping Center Associates., L.P., and other seminal premises liability cases to establish that an owner/occupier of land adjacent to a roadway owes a duty of reasonable care to its invitees, including the provision of safety features on the premises. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments that they had no duty to install safety features on their property, emphasizing that the duty of care extends beyond the physical boundaries of the land and is not limited by the nature of the dangerous condition (darkness). The Court also found that Spirit, despite being a nonpossessory landlord, had a duty of care to the decedent based on its retained right to reenter the property for safety purposes, as outlined in the lease agreement (paras 8-25).