{
  "id": 2832478,
  "name": "Robert RAPP and Argonaut Insurance Company, a corporation, Plalntiffs-Appellants, v. NEW MEXICO STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rapp v. New Mexico State Highway Department",
  "decision_date": "1975-01-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 1526",
  "first_page": "177",
  "last_page": "178",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.M. 177"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "531 P.2d 225"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "82 N.M. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5329456
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "406"
        },
        {
          "page": "914"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/82/0405-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 4498,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.803,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08490340556534377
    },
    "sha256": "4fb6d63e6ef7713ab7cd9de28dab7080c972ba83549738382b054194f98cee4a",
    "simhash": "1:1f1bd166332d1ecc",
    "word_count": 716
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:50.541053+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Robert RAPP and Argonaut Insurance Company, a corporation, Plalntiffs-Appellants, v. NEW MEXICO STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nPlaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendant because the trial court failed to give plaintiff\u2019s requested instruction on negligence per se.\nThe parties stipulated to the following:\nThat on or about September 20, 1969, the defendant, New Mexico State Highway Department, was engaged in maintenance or repair activities on U.S. Highway 87 east of the City of Des Moines, in Union County, New Mexico. The work being done by defendant, New Mexico State Highway Department, required the blocking of the entire paved roadway and the construction of a detour around the paved roadway. On the night of September 20, 1969 at approximately 10:00 P.M. no work was actually in progress but defendant had barricaded the highway and erected certain warning signs and positioned certain lights at or near said barricade. At that time and place, plaintiff, Rapp, drove his truck into the construction area and received certain injuries when he failed to negotiate the detour.\nThe Trial Court determined that the adequacy of the warning signs and lights placed by defendant was a question for the jury and submitted the issue to the jury under appropriate instructions, including plaintiff\u2019s Requested Instruction No. 7. The Court\u2019s Instructions, including plaintiff\u2019s Requested Instruction No. 7, are attached as Exhibit \u201cA\u201d.\nThe Court refused to give plaintiff\u2019s requested instruction attached hereto, marked Exhibit \u201cB\u201d, on the sole ground that the New Mexico State Highway Department was not an entity named or contemplated under New Mexico Statute 55 \u2014 7\u20141. The propriety of this refusal is plaintiff\u2019s sole point relied upon for reversal.\nSection 55-7-1, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 2) reads as follows:\nHereafter any person, firm, association, copartnership, contractor or corporation engaged in the alteration, repair \u2022or construction of any bridge, road or public highway in this state, shall maintain at all times proper danger signals, or lights, posted conspicuously at or near the place where such work, alteration, repair or construction is being done.\nSection 55-7-2 reads as follows:\nAny person found guilty of violating the provisions of this act [55-7-1, 55 \u2014 7\u2014 2], shall be fined in a sum not less than $50.00, and shall be liable for the damages sustained to any person injured by reason of the failure to comply with the provisions of this act.\nWas the New Mexico State Highway Department an entity named or contemplated under \u00a7 55-7-1 ? The answer is \u201cno\u201d.\nUnder rules of statutory construction, \u201cThe word \u2018person\u2019 may be extended to firms, associations and corporations\u201d. Section 1-2-2(E), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 1). Section 55-7-1 also includes \u201ccopartnership\u201d and \u201ccontractor\u201d. The New Mexico State Highway Commission is a constitutional state agency composed of appointed members who \u201cshall have such power and shall perform such duties as may be provided by law.\u201d N.M. Const. Art. V, \u00a7 14. The State Highway Commission is not a \u201cfirm, association, co-partnership, contractor or corporation\u201d, within the meaning of \u00a7 55-7-1. It is not a \u201cperson\u201d within the meaning of \u00a7 55-7-2. We feel bound by Southern Union Gas Co. v. New Mexico Pub. Serv. Com\u2019n, 82 N.M. 405, 406, 482 P.2d 913, 914 (1971), which states:\nThere are many statutes in which neither the U.S. nor States of the Union are considered as a \u201cperson.\u201d When the legislature has wanted to include sovereigns or other governmental bodies in its statutes, it has known how to do so.\nPlaintiff claims that if the \u201clegislative environment\u201d is considered, it shows that \u00a7 55-7-1, supra, includes the Highway Department. We disagree. At the time \u00a7 55-7-1, supra, was enacted in 1923, \u00a7 55-2-32, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, pt. 2) required that all highway improvements costing more than $1,000 were to be awarded to private contractors. The legislative environment supports our holding that the Highway Department is not included within \u00a7\u00a7 55-7-1 or 55-7-2, supra. Southern Union Gas Co. v. New Mexico Pub. Serv. Com\u2019n, supra.\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SUTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. Booker Kelly, White, Koch, Kelly & McCarthy, Santa Fe, for plaintiff s-appellants.",
      "James C. Ritchie, Jonathan W. Hewes, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P. A., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "531 P.2d 225\nRobert RAPP and Argonaut Insurance Company, a corporation, Plalntiffs-Appellants, v. NEW MEXICO STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 1526.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJan. 8, 1975.\nW. Booker Kelly, White, Koch, Kelly & McCarthy, Santa Fe, for plaintiff s-appellants.\nJames C. Ritchie, Jonathan W. Hewes, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P. A., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0177-01",
  "first_page_order": 203,
  "last_page_order": 204
}