2019 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 41 - Torts
Article 4 - Tort Claims
Section 41-4-18 - Jurisdiction; appeals; venue.
A. Exclusive original jurisdiction for any claim under the Tort Claims Act shall be in the district courts of New Mexico. Appeals may be taken as provided by law.
B. Venue for any claim against the state or its public employees, pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, shall be in the district court for the county in which a plaintiff resides, or in which the cause of action arose, or in Santa Fe county. Venue for all other claims pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, shall be in the county in which the principal offices of the governing body of the local public body are located.
History: 1953 Comp., § 5-14-16, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 58, § 16.
ANNOTATIONSSection is unconstitutional to extent that it acts to limit pendent jurisdiction of a federal district court over tort claims against counties, municipalities, and their officers. Wojciechowski v. Harriman, 607 F. Supp. 631 (D.N.M. 1985).
Constitutional deprivation may be remedied in a jurisdiction other than New Mexico. Wells v. County of Valencia, 1982-NMSC-048, 98 N.M. 3, 644 P.2d 517.
Federal jurisdiction barred. — Inmate could not pursue claim against the New Mexico Department of Corrections and its employees acting within the scope of their employment in the federal district court, but rather was relegated to the state district court to seek relief consistent with the limited waiver of immunity under this section. Bishop v. Doe 1, 902 F.2d 809 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 873, 111 S. Ct. 198, 112 L. Ed. 2d 159 (1990).
Venue provisions are mandatory. — The second sentence of Subsection B, relating to venue of actions against public entities or employees other than the state and its employees, was mandatory as applied to action against board of county commissioners. Williams v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1998-NMCA-090, 125 N.M. 445, 963 P.2d 522, cert. denied, 125 N.M. 654, 964 P.2d 818.
Suit against state hospital in federal court not permitted. — Congress does not have the power to make statutes such as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) applicable to state-run hospitals without the state's express consent. As indicated by this, 41-4-2 NMSA 1978 and 41-4-4 NMSA 1978, New Mexico has not consented to be sued in federal court for violations of EMTALA, nor for any other tort. Ward v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 72 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D.N.M. 1999).
Two-year statute of limitations applicable to negligence suit involving public utility's employee. — Section 41-4-15 NMSA 1978 of the Tort Claims Act, allowing two years to bring suit, and not the one-year limitation of 37-1-24 NMSA 1978, which refers to the time for bringing suits in negligence against any city, town or village, or any officers thereof, applies to a suit for negligence of a public employee in the operation of a public utility. Cozart v. Town of Bernalillo, 1983-NMCA-053, 99 N.M. 737, 663 P.2d 713.
Venue in actions against state educational institutions. — The venue provision of this section does not delimit choice of forum for tort actions brought against state educational institutions, which actions are governed by the venue provision set forth in 38-3-1G NMSA 1978. Clothier v. Lopez, 1985-NMSC-088, 103 N.M. 593, 711 P.2d 870.
Federal jurisdiction barred. — A student at the New Mexico School of Mines (now New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology), was barred from bringing an action in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking damages for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the school's board of regents in the operation of the school, because the action was, in effect, against the state of New Mexico, and the U.S. Const., amend. XI, barred federal jurisdiction. Korgich v. Regents of N.M. Sch. of Mines, 582 F.2d 549 (10th Cir. 1978).
Texas' sovereign immunity recognized as a matter of comity in tort claim lawsuit. — In a medical negligence case filed against a Texas-based physician who was acting within the scope of his employment at Texas tech hospital, a governmental unit of the state of Texas, the district court erred in failing to extend comity to Texas and apply provisions of the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA), because it is not a violation of New Mexico public policy when a similar action would not be barred under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, when Texas appellate courts have previously extended comity and applied tort claims provisions from other jurisdictions that differed from the TTCA's provisions, when Texas' strong public policy interest in applying uniform standards of liability and immunity to the conduct of state-employed physicians who provide medical care at state-run facilities is not outweighed by New Mexico's interest in providing a forum for New Mexicans who seek redress for medical negligence, and when failing to extend immunity to Texas in this case would encourage forum shopping by allowing plaintiffs to name Texas state employees in lawsuits in New Mexico when those plaintiffs could not do so in Texas. Monta o v. Frezza, 2017-NMSC-015, rev'g, 2015-NMCA-069.
Principles of comity applied to determine choice of law when tort is committed by non-resident. — Comity, the principle that the courts of one state give effect to the laws of another state or extend immunity to a sister sovereign, not as a rule of law, but rather out of deference or respect, should be extended to other states but only if doing so will not violate or undermine New Mexico's public policies. In determining whether to extend immunity, courts should consider whether the forum state would enjoy similar immunity under similar circumstances, whether the state sued has or is likely to extend immunity to other states, whether the forum state has a strong interest in litigating the case, and whether extending immunity would prevent forum shopping. Monta o v. Frezza, 2015-NMCA-069, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-006, and cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-006.
In a medical negligence case filed against a Texas-based physician, where the district court was required to determine whether the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (NMTCA) [41-4-1 through 41-4-27 NMSA 1978] or Texas law should apply, the district court did not err in determining that New Mexico law should apply because applying Texas law would be contrary to New Mexico's public policies in that applying Texas law would contravene New Mexico's broader waiver of immunity, would limit suits to governmental entities and prohibit suits against individuals, and would impose a notice requirement substantially more restrictive than that in the NMTCA. Monta o v. Frezza, 2015-NMCA-069, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-006, and cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-006.
Law reviews. — For article, "Constitutional Torts and the New Mexico Torts Claims Act," see 13 N.M.L. Rev. 1 (1983).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 57 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal, County, School, and State Tort Liability §§ 649 to 654.
