Walker v. Gregory J. Spina, Valley Express, Inc.

SHIRLEY J. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. GREGORY J. SPINA, VALLEY EXPRESS, INC., and GREAT WESTCASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants.

No. CIV 17-0991 JB\SCY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

December 11, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages, filed August 30, 2018 (Doc. 73)("MSJ"). The Court held a hearing on the MSJ on November 21, 2018. The primary issue is whether the Court should grant summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff Shirley Walker's claims against Defendants Gregory J. Spina and Valley Express, Inc. for punitive damages, because Walker cannot show that Spina acted with the requisite culpability when his commercial truck sideswiped Walker's automobile. In the Plaintiff Shirley J. Walker's Response to Defendnts' [sic] Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages ¶ 1, at 1, filed September 6, 2018 (Doc. 76)("MSJ Response"), Walker abandoned her request for punitive damages from Valley Express, so the Court will not address this claim. The Court will grant the Defendants' request for summary judgment on Walker's punitive damages claim against Spina, because Walker has not demonstrated a genuine issue of fact whether Spina acted willfully, wantonly, maliciously, recklessly, oppressively, or fraudulently. See Clay v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 1994-NMSC-080, ¶ 12, 881 P.2d 11, 14.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court draws the factual background from the parties' undisputed material facts in the MSJ and the MSJ Response.

On July 23, 2015, see MSJ ¶ 1, at 2 (asserting this fact)(citing generally First Amended Complaint for Personal Injuries and Damages, filed August 28, 2018 (Doc. 68)("Amended Complaint")),¹ Spina's commercial truck collided with Walker's automobile at a traffic light; Spina sideswiped Walker's automobile and a vehicle next to it as Spina ran the red light and crossed into the intersection before reaching a stop, see MSJ Response ¶ 2, at 2 (asserting these facts)(citing generally Affidavit of Shirley Walker (executed September 5, 2018), filed September 6, 2018 (Doc. 76)("Walker Aff.")).² Before the accident, Spina was traveling at around thirty to thirty-five miles per hour. See MSJ ¶ 7, at 1 (asserting this fact)(citing generally Defendant Gregory J. Spina's Answers and Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission, First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production (undated), filed August 30, 2018 (Doc. 73-1)("Interrogatories Answers")).³ After the accident, Spina told Walker that he thought she and the other vehicle "were going to run the yellow light." Walker Aff. ¶ 6, at 1-2 (asserting this fact).⁴ Walker did not hear Spina apply his brakes. See Walker Aff. ¶ 7, at 2 (asserting this fact).⁵ Walker is now eighty-four years old. See Walker Aff. ¶ 2, at 1 (asserting these facts).⁶

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Court recited this case's facts and early procedural history in its Memorandum Opinion and Order at 2-3, No. CIV 17-0991 JB/SCY, 2018 WL 4100944, at *1, filed August 28, 2018 (Doc. 67)("MOO"). The Court incorporates that recitation here. The footnote associated with the quoted text is also quoted in full from the MOO.

Walker sues Spina and Valley Express, asserting negligence,⁷ and sues Defendant Dixon Insurance Company, asserting that she has a claim for benefits against it under the [New Mexico Financial Responsibility Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 66-5-201 to -239] and Raskob[v. Sanchez, 1998-NMSC-045, 970 P.2d 580] for injuries that Spina's negligence caused. See [Walker's Complaint for Personal Injuries and Damages (First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico), filed December 23, 2016, filed in federal court September 29, 2017 (Doc. 1-1)("Complaint")] ¶¶ 8-13, at 3-5. Spina and Valley Express removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico at 1, filed September 29, 2017 (Doc. 1)("Notice of Removal").

MOO at 2-3, 2018 WL 4100944, at *1. The Amended Complaint terminated Dixon Insurance Company as a Defendant and added, in its place, Great West Casualty Company. See Amended Complaint at 1.

1. The MSJ.

The Defendants ask the Court to grant summary judgment dismissing Walker's claims for punitive damages. See MSJ at 1. The Defendants admit that the Court should apply "the substantive law of New Mexico." MSJ at 3. The Defendants aver that Walker cannot establish a claim for punitive damages against either Spina or Valley Express, because Walker cannot show that the Defendants' conduct "rises to the level of willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct" that New Mexico law requires for punitive damages. MSJ at 3-4. The Defendants further contend that, "in New Mexico, punitive damages are not imposed on an employer for the acts of an employee pursuant to respondeat superior"; rather, according to the Defendants, Walker must establish Valley Express' culpability. MSJ at 4-5. The Defendants note that Walker has produced no evidence showing Valley Express' culpability. See MSJ at 5. Further, according to the Defendants, Walker has not submitted any documentation or testimony showing that Spina acted with the requisite culpability. See MSJ at 5. According to the Defendants, Spina did not consume drugs or alcohol in the forty-eight hours before the accident, and, when he saw Walker's automobile "stop suddenly for a traffic light," Spina attempted to stop his truck. MSJ at 5.

2. The MSJ Response.

Walker concedes that she will not seek punitive damages against Valley Express. See MSJ Response ¶ 1, at 1. Walker avers that Spina continued traveling "at about 30 to 35 miles per hour" through the traffic light. MSJ Response ¶ 2, at 1. According to Walker, she and the other vehicle "did not 'suddenly stop,'" but had been sitting at the traffic light "for a period of time" before Spina collided with them. MSJ Response ¶ 2, at 2 (quoting MSJ at 5). Further, Walker contends that Spina applied his brakes only after crossing the intersection, and that Spina informed Walker that he thought that she and the other driver would continue through the yellow light. See MSJ ¶ 2, at 2. Walker argues that Spina "acted willfully, wantonly, recklessly, consciously, indifferent or with a culpable mental state," because he was driving over the speed limit or sped up to continue through the yellow light, and never attempted to brake his truck. MSJ Response ¶ 3, at 2 (citing generally Walker Aff.).

In the Walker Aff., Walker describes the automobile accident, beginning "I was in the vehicle accident as noted per the police report hereto attached and marked 'Exhibit A'." Walker Aff. ¶ 3, at 1. She continues: "I was stopped at a red light when Mr. Gregory J. Spina, driving a large commercial vehicle; attached and marked 'Exhibit B', drove his large truck between my vehicle, attached and marked 'Exhibit C', and a van, attached and marked 'Exhibit D'." Walker Aff. ¶ 4, at 1. According to Walker, "Mr. Spina ran the red light and crossed the intersection as can be noted by the attached 'Exhibit E'." Walker Aff. ¶ 5, at 1. "After the accident," Walker explains, "Mr. Spina informed me that he thought we were going to run the yellow light. Which indicated to me that he saw my vehicle and the other vehicle he hit while we were stopped at the light, and that he never considered slowing down, but accelerated his speed." Walker Aff. ¶ 6, at 1-2. According to Walker:

My vehicle which I stopped for the red light, did not "suddenly stop" for the traffic light, and I didn't hear Spina apply his brakes as he went between my car and the other car that stopped for the red light. Also the photos produced by the Defendants in this case don't show any brake markings either before he entered the intersection, while he was in the intersection, or after he crossed the intersection. "Exhibit E" shows that Mr. Spina was traveling so fast that he stopped a considerable distance from the intersection after hitting two vehicles and running a red light.

Walker Aff. ¶ 7, at 2. Walker further states that:

In light of the fact that Mr. Spina was driving a large commercial vehicle, he should not have prepared to run a yellow light, should have proceeded within the speed that was warranted with other vehicles on the roadway, and should have slowed down when he saw the yellow light, and then stopped at the red light, rather than running the red light.

Walker Aff. ¶ 8, at 2. "The conduct of Mr. Spina was very dangerous," argues Walker, "in that he was traveling to [sic] fast, he never intended to stop for the red light, and that he finally ran the red light and that he went through the intersection hitting two cars in the process with his semi-truck." Walker Aff. ¶ 9, at 2. Walker summarizes that, because conflicting facts exist, the Court cannot grant the Defendants' summary judgment motion. See MSJ Response at 2-3.

3. The MSJ Reply.

The Defendants argue that Walker points only to the Walker Aff. to support her arguments, and that the Walker Aff., is "insufficient to show disputed facts." Defendants' Reply in Support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages at 1, filed September 20, 2018 (Doc. 84)("MSJ Reply"). The Defendants aver that the Walker Aff. is not based on personal knowledge and "does not set out facts that are admissible evidence." MSJ Reply at 1-2. The Defendants contend that the New Mexico State Police Report (dated July 24, 2015), filed September 6, 2018 (Doc. 76)("Police Report"), is inadmissible hearsay, and that, in the Walker Aff., Walker relies on Photographs, filed September 6, 2018 (Doc. 76), and speculation rather than her personal knowledge when she describes Spina's state of mind, brake marks, speed, and brake application. See MSJ Reply at 2. The Defendants argue that...