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 Plaintiff sustained personal injuries from a fall near an irrigation ditch maintained by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was allegedly on a "service road" at the time of the fall, which occurred adjacent to a wooden backboard and a steel handwheel used for water diversion purposes. The Plaintiff's injuries resulted from striking the steel turnout frame while attempting to use the irrigation works to water his fields (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the location of the fall, supported by photographs showing knee imprints and tire tracks, and deposition testimony, constituted a "service road." Asserted that this fact created a genuine dispute requiring a trial on the merits. Contended that the Defendant's maintenance of this roadway negated their claim to sovereign immunity under NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-11 (paras 2-6).
• Defendant: Asserted sovereign immunity based on NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-6(B) (2007), arguing that the Plaintiff's injury resulted from the maintenance of works used for the diversion or storage of water, not from the maintenance of a roadway. Claimed that the area where the Plaintiff fell was not a service road maintained by them, as their service road was located on the opposite bank of the ditch (paras 2, 4-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's injury arose from the Defendant's maintenance of a roadway, thereby waiving sovereign immunity under NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-11, or from the maintenance of works involved in the diversion of water, retaining sovereign immunity under NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-6(B) (2007) (paras 2-3).

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, concluding that the Plaintiff's injury resulted from the maintenance of works used for the diversion of water, thereby retaining the Defendant's sovereign immunity (para 7).

Reasons

• Per ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge (J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, and KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge concurring): The Court found that the Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment failed to establish that his injury resulted from the maintenance of a roadway. The existence of tire tracks and the ability of a backhoe to access the area did not establish the maintenance of a roadway on the side of the ditch where the Plaintiff fell. The Court also noted that the Plaintiff's own photographs and complaints indicated that the injury occurred immediately adjacent to the works used for water diversion, supporting the Defendant's claim to sovereign immunity under Section 41-4-6. The Court was unpersuaded by the Plaintiff's assertion that the area surrounding the turnout frame was a "service road," concluding that the Defendant had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment based on sovereign immunity (paras 3-6).