Carrillo v. Copper Sols. & Servs.

RICARDO CARRILLO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COPPER SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES, LLC; CECILIO DURAN MEDINA;and GEORGE C. ALDERETE, Defendants-Appellants,andMARTIN GARCIA; BONNIE DUTRAM;and MISS BONNIE'S PDQ ESCORT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants.

No. A-1-CA-36704

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

March 10, 2020

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY

Matthew J. Sandoval, Jr., District Judge

Wray & Girard P.C.

Katherine Wray

Albuquerque, NM

Peifer, Hanson & Mullins, P.A.

Lauren Keefe

Albuquerque, NM

Martinez Law Office

W. Ken Martinez

Camille Martinez-Olguin

Grants, NM

Tandy Hunt P.C.

Tandy Hunt

Hannah Bell

Jessica Thompson

Roswell, NM

for Appellee

Keleher & McLeod, P.A.

Thomas C. Bird

Kurt Wihl

Justin B. Breen

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellants Copper Solutions and Services, LLC and Cecilio Duran Medina

Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.

Edward Ricco

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant George C. Alderete

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BOGARDUS, Judge.

{1} Cecilio Duran Medina, George C. Alderete, and Copper Solutions Services, LLC (collectively, the Copper Solutions Defendants) appeal from a jury verdict that awarded both compensatory and punitive damages to Ricardo Carrillo (Plaintiff). Between them, they raise challenges to jury instructions, the admission of expert testimony, the admission of documentary evidence, and the punitive damages award. We reverse the punitive damages award against Medina and otherwise affirm.

BACKGROUND

{2} Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we set forth here only a brief overview of the historical facts of this case. We reserve discussion of specific facts where necessary to our analysis.

{3} On November 2, 2011, Medina was driving west on State Road 529¹ between Hobbs and Artesia, New Mexico, in a semi-truck with a flatbed trailer that was owned by Copper Solutions, which in turn was owned by Alderete. Immediately after coming out ofa curve in the roadway, Medina rear ended a pickup truck driven by Martin Garcia that was either stopped in the roadway or was traveling very slowly. The pickup truck driven by Garcia was owned by Miss Bonnie's PDQ Escort Service, LLC, which in turn was owned by Bonnie Dutram. Following this collision, the pickup truck driven by Garcia crossed the center line, traveled through the eastbound lane, and eventually rolled over. The semi-truck driven by Medina also crossed the center lane, resulting in a head-on collision with Plaintiff's semi-truck with a tank trailer that was traveling east on State Road 529. Both Plaintiff and Medina were injured in that collision and were airlifted from the scene.

{4} Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking both compensatory and punitive damages against two groups: (1) the Copper Solutions Defendants; and (2) the PDQ Defendants, which consisted of Garcia, Dutram, and Miss Bonnie's PDQ Escort Service, LLC. The parties engaged in extensive litigation before the matter proceeded to trial. During the nine day trial, the jury heard from numerous witnesses, including eyewitnesses, experts in accident reconstruction, and medical experts.

{5} The jury awarded Plaintiff $7,000,000 in compensatory damages and apportioned fault as follows: (1) twenty percent to Medina; (2) fifteen percent to Alderete; (3) fifteen percent to Copper Solutions; (4) twenty percent to Garcia; (5) fifteen percent to Dutram; and (6) fifteen percent to Miss Bonnie's PDQ Escort Service, LLC. The jury also awarded punitive damages in the following amounts: (1) $3,000,000 against Medina; (2) $6,000,000 against Alderete and Copper Solutions; (3) $3,000,000 against Garcia; and (4) $6,000,000 against Dutram and Miss Bonnie's PDQ Escort Service, LLC. The district court entered separate judgments against the Copper Solutions Defendants and the PDQ Defendants. The PDQ Defendants settled following the entry of judgment against them and are not party to this appeal. The Copper Solutions Defendants appeal.

DISCUSSION

I. The Jury Instructions Regarding Alderete, When Viewed as a Whole, Were Sufficient

{6} Alderete challenges the UJI 13-302B NMRA (13-302B instruction) that was given, arguing that that it failed "to focus on the elements of liability or distinguish adequately among the various claims of negligence against" the Copper Solutions Defendants. Alderete further contends that those failures allowed the jury to find liability on his part "without ever actually finding that [he] was negligent or that he had engaged in conduct causally related to the accident." Alderete contends that the problem created by those failures was compounded by the district court's "erroneous application of the negligence per se doctrine to Medina's violation of two motor vehicle statutes."² In relevant part, the 13-302B instruction given to the jury provided as follows:

To establish negligence on the part of Defendants[,] Mr. Carrillo has the burden of proving at least one of the following:

With regard to Defendants Cecilio Medina, George Alderete and Copper Solution[s] and Services, LLC:

12. Driver Medina failed to keep a proper lookout and carelessly operated the semi[-]truck.

13. Driver Medina failed to keep a proper lookout and followed Miss Bonnie PDQ['s] red truck too closely.

14. Defendant Medina drove the semi[-]truck left of center on [State Road] 529.

15. Defendant George Alderete allowed an out of service vehicle to be operated on the roads of New Mexico.

16. Defendant[s] George Alderete and Copper Solutions failed to properly qualify and drug test Defendant driver Medina [who] was allowed to operate the semi[-]truck on New Mexico [S]tate [R]oad 529 before and . . . after the crash with Mr. Carrillo.

The [c]ourt has determined that Mr. Medina was guilty of following too closely and careless driving. The [c]ourt has also determined that Defendant Copper Solutions and Services is responsible for the careless driving and following too closely of Defendant Medina.

{7} We review Alderete's challenges to the 13-302B instruction and the application of negligence per se de novo. Benavidez v. City of Gallup, 2007-NMSC-026, ¶ 19, 141 N.M. 808, 161 P.3d 853. "Jury instructions are sufficient if, when read as a whole, they fairly present the issues and the applicable law." Vigil v. Miners Colfax Med. Ctr., 1994-NMCA-054, ¶ 21, 117 N.M. 665, 875 P.2d 1096. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the jury instructions regarding Alderete when read as a whole are sufficient.

{8} Alderete's argument concerning the 13-302B instruction and the application of negligence per se fails to account for the other instructions that were also given to the jury. While the 13-302B instruction contained five theories of the Copper Solutions Defendants' alleged negligence—two of which pertained specifically to the conduct of Alderete—the jury also received a special verdict form that required it to answer a seriesof questions about the Copper Solutions Defendants. Those questions narrowed the theories of negligence against Copper Solutions and Alderete to just one—whether Copper Solutions or Alderete were negligent in their training and supervision of Medina.

{9} On the special verdict, the jury answered "yes" when asked whether Copper Solutions or Alderete were negligent in their training and supervision of Medina. The jury also answered "yes" on the special verdict form when asked whether any negligence of Copper Solutions or Alderete was a cause of Plaintiff's injuries. The jury then allocated fault, assigning fifteen percent to Copper Solutions and fifteen percent to Alderete. The allocation of fault to Alderete is especially significant because the special verdict form gave the jury the option of finding that his percentage of fault was zero if it found either "that [he] was not negligent or that any negligence on the part of [Alderete] was not a proximate cause of damage." We conclude that the jury's answers to the questions on the special verdict form, considered together, indicate that the jury found Alderete's training and supervision of Medina to be a negligent cause of Plaintiff's injuries. Finally, nothing in the jury's answers to the questions posed on the special verdict form indicate that the jury relied on any other theory of negligence asserted against Alderete or that they relied on a theory asserted against Copper Solutions or Medina when determining Alderete's liability. For these reasons, we conclude that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, fairly presented the issues and the applicable law as relevant to the claims against Alderete. See Vigil, 1994-NMCA-054, ¶ 21.

II. Alderete Has Not Demonstrated That He Was Prejudiced by Any Error in the Admission of Dr. Brian Norkiewicz's Testimony

{10} At trial, Plaintiff offered expert testimony from Dr. Norkiewicz to prove the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff's past and future medical expenses. When Dr. Norkiewicz offered such opinions, he discussed both future surgery expenses and future medication expenses. Alderete argues that "Dr. Norkiewicz's testimony regarding the reasonableness of future medical expenses should not have been admitted to the extent [that] the testimony simply adopted the opinions of non-testifying experts contained in the [independent medical examination] report."³ We note that the portions of Dr. Norkiewicz's testimony challenged by Alderete relate only to his testimony regarding future surgical expenses and not his testimony concerning future medication expenses. Therefore, we limit our analysis accordingly.

{11} "Generally, the district court's rulings as to admissibility of expert testimony are reviewed for an abuse of discretion."...