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

• Mark Pooler voluntarily committed himself to a psychiatric facility. After being released, he went to his son's home to retrieve personal items, unaware that his wife and daughter, who had obtained a temporary order of protection against him, were there. His daughter called 911, leading to Pooler's arrest and 31-day detention due to the un-served restraining order. The criminal charges against Pooler were later dismissed. Pooler filed a complaint against the City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Police Department, alleging wrongful arrest, battery, and false imprisonment. Pooler died, unrelated to this case, and his son was named personal representative of his estate (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the theories of wrongful arrest, battery, and false imprisonment did not abate upon Pooler's death and that the statutory abatement and revivor provision, NMSA 1978, § 37-2-4, allowed the complaint to survive Pooler's death (paras 5-6).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the complaint's theories, being based on intentional torts, did not survive Pooler's death. Additionally, argued that negligent hiring, training, and supervision claims did not fall under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (paras 6, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether claims for damages caused by intentional torts survive the death of the person asserting them.
• Whether the statutory abatement and revivor provision, NMSA 1978, § 37-2-4, applies to the case, allowing the complaint to survive the plaintiff's death.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that under NMSA 1978, § 37-2-4, the complaint did not abate due to Pooler's death and remanded for further proceedings (para 11).

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge (with CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The court found that the district court erred in dismissing the case based on the common law rule that claims for damages caused by intentional torts do not survive the death of the person asserting them. The court clarified that under NMSA 1978, § 37-2-4, no action pending in any court shall abate by the death of either party, except for specific exceptions not applicable in this case. The court emphasized that the statute applies to the case at hand because it was pending when Pooler passed away, thus his claims survived his death. The court rejected the plaintiff's estate's incorrect assertion that Section 37-2-4 did not apply and reversed the district court's dismissal, remanding for further proceedings. The court declined to address the defendants' argument regarding the negligent hiring, training, and supervision theories as it was not addressed by the district court (paras 9-12).