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

• On November 23, 2013, the plaintiffs were injured after being struck by a police cruiser negligently operated by Officer Mendoza, a City of Las Cruces police officer. The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants, alleging negligence, while the defendants filed a counter-claim alleging one of the plaintiffs was at fault. A jury found the defendants 100 percent liable and awarded monetary damages to the plaintiffs (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that they were injured due to the negligent operation of a police cruiser by Officer Mendoza and sought monetary damages for their injuries (para 2).
• Defendants: Filed a counter-claim alleging one of the plaintiffs was at fault for the incident. They also raised issues regarding the admissibility of certain evidence and the correctness of the jury's verdict form and award for future medical expenses (paras 1, 4-6, 16, 20, 27, 31).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in its evidentiary rulings, specifically regarding the exclusion of a fleet crash review board report, the admission of evidence of Officer Mendoza’s post-accident speeding citation, and the exclusion of evidence regarding the defendants' offer to pay for half of the costs of a customized wheelchair for one of the plaintiffs (paras 4-19).
• Whether the district court erred in denying the defendants' motion for a mistrial following an expert witness's mistaken reference to a different patient's documents during testimony (para 20).
• Whether the special verdict form was incorrect in assigning liability percentages to the defendants (para 27).
• Whether there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s award for future medical expenses (para 31).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on all issues raised by the defendants (paras 1, 35).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the defendants did not adequately demonstrate how the district court abused its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. Specifically, the defendants failed to show that the district court's decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence were untenable or unjustified. The court declined to consider the defendants' argument about the fleet crash review board findings due to a lack of specific references to the trial record (paras 4-5, 15, 19).
  Regarding the motion for a mistrial, the court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The error made by the expert witness was corrected, and both parties had the opportunity to address the mistake with the jury, mitigating any potential prejudice (paras 20-26).
  The court did not address the defendants' argument concerning the special verdict form due to lack of preservation. The defendants did not object to the form at trial, and thus, the issue was not preserved for appeal (paras 27-30).
  Similarly, the court found that the defendants failed to preserve the issue of the jury’s award for future medical expenses for appeal. The defendants did not object to the jury's consideration of future medical expenses at trial, nor did they develop a sufficient argument or provide legal authority to support their claim that the award was excessive (paras 31-34).