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, an employee of a subcontractor, suffered permanent, serious bodily injury due to a scaffolding collapse. The scaffolding, owned and constructed by another subcontractor for a construction project, was overloaded two to four times its capacity with sixteen tons of masonry block. Despite safety protocols requiring inspection and tagging of the scaffolding, the plaintiff and other employees were working on it when it collapsed (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Summary judgment in favor of the defendant, determining the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the objective and subjective prongs of the Delgado test (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the defendant's conduct met the Delgado standard for willful and egregious conduct, presenting evidence of the scaffolding's dangerous overload and the defendant's knowledge of the risk (paras 8-9).
• Defendants-Appellees: Contended that their actions did not meet the Delgado standard for willful and egregious conduct, emphasizing the routine nature of the task, the presence of a green tag on the scaffolding, and the plaintiff's lack of safety concerns (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the defendant's conduct met the objective and subjective prongs of the Delgado test, thus subjecting it to general tort liability outside the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (paras 1, 18-19).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that the plaintiff did not meet the subjective prong of the Delgado test (para 47).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Bustamante writing, concurred by Judges Hanisee and Medina, held that while the plaintiff satisfied the objective prong of the Delgado test by demonstrating the scaffolding's dangerous overload, he failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant's subjective knowledge of the risk. The court found no evidence that the defendant knew the scaffolding had been overloaded or that it disregarded the consequences of such a dangerous situation. The court also addressed the finality of the district court's decision, the admissibility of certain deposition testimony, and a motion for sanctions related to the disclosure of settlement amounts, ultimately denying the motion for sanctions (paras 12-51).