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, represented by Ben Maestas through power of attorney, filed a negligence claim against Defendant LCJ, LLC, operating as Beehive Homes of Rio Rancho

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant was negligent in failing to secure an electrical cord, which constituted a tripping hazard leading to Ms. Maestas's injury. The Plaintiff also contested the district court's decisions on excluding expert testimony, instructing the jury on independent intervening causation, excluding evidence of regulations, and giving a curative instruction regarding comments made during closing arguments.
• Defendant: Defended against the negligence claim by arguing lack of causation in fact for Ms. Maestas's injury, suggesting that a spontaneous bone fracture caused her fall, not the electrical cord. The Defendant supported the district court's rulings on the exclusion of expert testimony, jury instructions, and other contested issues.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by excluding the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness.
• Whether the district court erred in instructing the jury on independent intervening causation.
• Whether the district court erred by excluding evidence of regulations and refusing to instruct the jury about those regulations.
• Whether the district court erred in giving a curative instruction about a comment made by Plaintiff’s counsel during closing arguments.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of the Defendant, LCJ, LLC.

Reasons

• IVES, Judge.
  The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness, as the testimony was deemed unhelpful to the jury since the average lay juror could independently conceive of methods for securing electrical cords (paras 2-4).
  The Court held that the Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the jury instruction on independent intervening causation. It was determined that the instruction, although given in error, did not affect the substantial rights of the parties because the jury's verdict was based on a finding of no negligence by the Defendant, not on causation issues (paras 5-8).
  The Court concluded that the district court did not err in excluding references to and denying jury instructions incorporating certain regulations applicable to assisted living facilities for adults. The given instructions adequately covered the issue of the Defendant's duty to redress tripping hazards (paras 9-11).
  The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's attempt to cure a comment by Plaintiff’s counsel during closing arguments. The curative instruction was consistent with the court's pretrial ruling and aimed to ensure the jury's deliberations were free of passion and prejudice (paras 12-13).