{ "id": 1577367, "name": "Johnny VIGIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim RUSH and Sam Rush, Individually and d/b/a Rush Construction Company, Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Vigil v. Rush", "decision_date": "1981-10-05", "docket_number": "No. 13464", "first_page": "667", "last_page": "668", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "96 N.M. 667" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "634 P.2d 689" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "561 P.2d 1347", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 N.M. 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 N.M. 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2869120 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/90/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5335657 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N.M. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1557252 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/92/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 A.L.R.3d 513", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 L.Ed.2d 770", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 S.Ct. 806", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "362 U.S. 941", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6197377, 6197133, 6197869, 6197615, 6196851, 6196599 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/362/0681-04", "/us/362/0681-03", "/us/362/0681-06", "/us/362/0681-05", "/us/362/0681-02", "/us/362/0681-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 F.2d 817", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1967725 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/270/0817-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 236, "char_count": 2674, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08, "percentile": 0.43618218668347075 }, "sha256": "22516e62f33f98045fb26c2f5f2f9ceb9f0dd556fae7082f587b8c253fb4c7dd", "simhash": "1:19d9693d45dd5779", "word_count": 449 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:25:27.930698+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SOSA, Senior Justice, and FEDERICI, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "Johnny VIGIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim RUSH and Sam Rush, Individually and d/b/a Rush Construction Company, Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nTIBO J. CHAVEZ, District Judge.\nJohnny Vigil, appellant, sought declaratory relief absolving him of liability for the loss of an insulation blower owned by Sam and Jim Rush. The trial court found: (1) Sam and Jim Rush bailed the insulation blower to Vigil, and (2) Vigil, as bailee, expressly accepted responsibility for the loss of the item. We affirm.\nThe sole issue presented to us is whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court\u2019s finding that Vigil had expressly agreed to be responsible for the loss of the insulation blower.\nVigil had entered into a verbal agreement with Sam and Jim Rush for the use of an insulation blower. Vigil hired the equipment with an option to purchase. The equipment was delivered to Vigil and was subsequently destroyed by fire through no fault of Vigil.\nThe general rule of law is that the bailee is not an insurer of goods bailed to him unless a statute or an express contract states otherwise. United States v. Seaboard Machinery Corporation, 270 F.2d 817 (5th Cir.1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 941, 80 S.Ct. 806, 4 L.Ed.2d 770 (1960); Annot., 28 A.L.R.3d 513 (1969); 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments \u00a7 215 (1980).\nAt trial, Sam Rush said:\nQ: Okay. Did you have any conversation about any possible damage or destruction of the machine?\nA: Johnny asked me, if something should happen, what does it cost me? And, I told him that the entire unit as it sat with the trailer and the equipment was $8500.00.\nIt is for the trier of fact, not us, to determine the credibility of Sam Rush\u2019s testimony Baker v. Benedict, 92 N.M. 283, 587 P.2d 430 (1978); Durrett v. Petritsis, 82 N.M. 1, 474 P.2d 487 (1970).\nThe trial court accepted Sam Rush\u2019s testimony as true. We conclude that this testimony established an express contract in which Johnny Vigil would pay for the loss of the insulation blower.\nThe trial court accepted Sam Rush\u2019s testimony as true. We conclude that this testimony clearly established that Vigil would pay for the loss of the insulation blower. We agree that this is substantial evidence which a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the trial court\u2019s conclusion. Moorhead v. Gray Ranch Co., 90 N.M. 220, 561 P.2d 493 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 90 N.M. 254, 561 P.2d 1347 (1977).\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nSOSA, Senior Justice, and FEDERICI, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TIBO J. CHAVEZ, District Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "George M. Scarborough, Espa\u00f1ola, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Roy G. Hill, Deming, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "634 P.2d 689\nJohnny VIGIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim RUSH and Sam Rush, Individually and d/b/a Rush Construction Company, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 13464.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nOct. 5, 1981.\nGeorge M. Scarborough, Espa\u00f1ola, for plaintiff-appellant.\nRoy G. Hill, Deming, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0667-01", "first_page_order": 695, "last_page_order": 696 }