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 case involves the wrongful death of Fernando Flores, who was electrocuted while working for a subcontractor of Devon Energy Production Co., L.P. The incident occurred when a gin-pole truck, moving a blowout preventer (BOP) with Flores walking behind to ensure stability, struck an overhead power line. Flores was working for Battle, a subcontractor engaged by Devon for drilling services at a wellsite in New Mexico. The Estate of Fernando Flores brought a wrongful death action against Devon and others, alleging negligence and seeking damages (paras 3-7).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Jury returned a verdict of "no negligence" in favor of Devon, after which the Estate appealed (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Estate: Argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on Devon's duty of care, improperly admitting and excluding evidence, and allowing Devon to engage in prejudicial closing arguments (para 2).
• Devon: Contended that the Estate failed to preserve the errors complained of, the district court did not commit reversible error, and the Estate cannot demonstrate prejudice (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in instructing the jury regarding Devon's duty of care to the decedent.
• Whether the district court improperly admitted or excluded evidence.
• Whether Devon engaged in an improper and prejudicial closing argument.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded for a new trial, based on errors in jury instructions regarding Devon's duty of care (para 40).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the question of duty, which should have been decided as a matter of law. The instructions given were based on exceptions to a general rule of no liability for hirers of independent contractors, which did not accurately reflect New Mexico law following the Rodriguez decision. The court concluded that the instructions were erroneous and prejudicial, warranting a new trial. Additionally, the court expressed concern over the district court's exclusion of evidence related to Devon's post-incident corrective actions and the improper use of the settlement agreement by Devon during closing arguments, although these issues were not the basis for the decision to reverse and remand (paras 8-54).