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 an independent contractor hired by Cimarex, was injured after falling over the handrail of a flight of stairs while working on an oil drilling rig. The Plaintiff sued Cimarex, alleging negligence in various forms including failure to provide a safe work environment and causing him to work while fatigued. Cimarex argued it had no duty to the Plaintiff as it was not aware of his fatigue or work schedule (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Lea County, Gary L. Clingman, District Judge: Granted summary judgment in favor of Cimarex, finding that Cimarex owed no duty to the Plaintiff.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that Cimarex was negligent in failing to provide a safe work environment, failing to keep a proper lookout for his safety, failing to allow him proper time for rest and recuperation, interrupting his sleep for unnecessary supervision, and creating a system that caused him to work while fatigued (para 5).
• Cimarex: Contended that it owed no duty to the Plaintiff because it was not aware of the Plaintiff's fatigue or work schedule. Asserted that it did not have control over or awareness of Plaintiff’s work schedule and did not create the work environment that caused Plaintiff’s fatigue (para 17).

Legal Issues

• Whether Cimarex had supervisory control over the operations of the independent contractor so as to give rise to a duty to act reasonably in exercising that control (para 1).
• Whether there are issues of fact surrounding the questions of whether Cimarex’s actions breached any duty it owed to the Plaintiff and whether those actions caused the Plaintiff’s injuries (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Cimarex and remanded for further proceedings (para 22).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Cynthia A. Fry with Judges James J. Wechsler and M. Monica Zamora concurring, found that there were issues of fact as to whether Cimarex had supervisory control over the independent contractor’s operations, which could give rise to a duty to act reasonably in exercising that control. The Court also determined that there were factual issues regarding whether Cimarex’s actions breached any duty owed to the Plaintiff and whether those actions caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court emphasized that the question of duty is not whether Cimarex had control over Plaintiff’s fatigue or his schedule, but whether Cimarex had any right of supervision over the contractor’s operations. Evidence presented by the Plaintiff suggested that Cimarex indeed had such supervisory control, creating issues of fact precluding summary judgment (paras 6-21).