{ "id": 1555074, "name": "Rose ORTEGA, Parent and natural guardian of Gilbert Ortega, a minor child, Petitioner, v. Joe MONTOYA and Mark Montoya, a minor child, Respondents", "name_abbreviation": "Ortega v. Montoya", "decision_date": "1981-12-18", "docket_number": "No. 13552", "first_page": "159", "last_page": "161", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "97 N.M. 159" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "637 P.2d 841" } ], "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": "87 N.M. 5", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2836436, 2836340, 2836575 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "question of child's negligence not proper for summary judgment because of subjectivity of determination based on his age, mental capacity, and experience" }, { "parenthetical": "question of child's negligence not proper for summary judgment because of subjectivity of determination based on his age, mental capacity, and experience" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/87/0005-02", "/nm/87/0005-01", "/nm/87/0005-03" ] }, { "cite": "87 N.M. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2829905 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/87/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 L.Ed.2d 95", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 S.Ct. 121", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "434 U.S. 834", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6269058, 6268547, 6267367, 6266504, 6267921, 6268211, 6267092, 6267605, 6266782, 6268791, 6266238, 6269311 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/434/0834-11", "/us/434/0834-09", "/us/434/0834-05", "/us/434/0834-02", "/us/434/0834-07", "/us/434/0834-08", "/us/434/0834-04", "/us/434/0834-06", "/us/434/0834-03", "/us/434/0834-10", "/us/434/0834-01", "/us/434/0834-12" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.M. 195", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2874306 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/90/0195-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.M. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5360652 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N.M. 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5377623 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "131-32" }, { "page": "309" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/75/0129-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 286, "char_count": 3628, "ocr_confidence": 0.753, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.207981058988994e-08, "percentile": 0.5098903449583354 }, "sha256": "294205d5c7ec29e829f6e8c06b0c160894611ac92beeb46e751ff113ff9a38d4", "simhash": "1:8e0663ac36031472", "word_count": 595 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:10:51.585150+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "EASLEY, C. J., SOSA, Senior Justice, and PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "Rose ORTEGA, Parent and natural guardian of Gilbert Ortega, a minor child, Petitioner, v. Joe MONTOYA and Mark Montoya, a minor child, Respondents." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nRIORDAN, Justice.\nMark Montoya (Montoya), the minor child of Joe Montoya, shot the petitioner, Gilbert Ortega (Ortega), with a BB gun causing injury to Ortega\u2019s eye.\nThe trial court awarded $9,178.55 in compensatory damages in favor of Ortega and against Montoya. It also found that Montoya\u2019s conduct was willful and malicious and awarded damages of $2,500 and $1,000 in attorney\u2019s fees against Montoya\u2019s father under the Parental Responsibility Statute. \u00a7 32-1-46, N.M.S.A.1978. The Court of Appeals affirmed the award entered against Montoya, but reversed the judgment as to the parental liability. We granted certiorari and reverse the Court of Appeals on the issue of parental liability.\nThe issue is whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court\u2019s finding that Montoya\u2019s act was \u201cwillful\u201d and \u201cmalicious\u201d within the meaning of the Parental Responsibility Statute.\nIn Potomac Insurance Company v. Torres, 75 N.M. 129, 131-32, 401 P.2d 308, 309 (1965), we defined \u201cwillful\u201d and \u201cmalicious\u201d as used in the Parental Responsibility Statute as follows:\nThere is very little, if any, difference between \u201cwillful\u201d and \u201cmalicious\u201d conduct, and when [the statute] characterizes an act as being done \u201cwillfully\u201d or \u201cmaliciously,\u201d it denotes the intentioned doing of a harmful act without just cause or excuse or an intentional act done in utter disregard for the consequences, and does not necessarily mean actual malice or ill will. [Citations omitted.]\nThere is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court\u2019s conclusion that Montoya acted willfully and maliciously. \u201cSubstantial evidence\u201d is that evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate support for a conclusion. Samora v. Bradford, 81 N.M. 205, 465 P.2d 88 (Ct.App.1970). It is not our function to weigh the evidence or its credibility, and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court so long as the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Getz v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 90 N.M. 195, 561 P.2d 468, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 834, 98 S.Ct. 121, 54 L.Ed.2d 95 (1977).\nThe transcript of the trial includes testimony of two witnesses that Montoya, after threatening that he would shoot Ortega with his BB gun if Ortega did not play with him, stood on a wall and pointed the gun at Ortega before he shot the gun and hit Ortega in the eye. The fact that the defendant was only eight years old at the time of the incident does not preclude a finding of willful and malicious conduct. It cannot be said as a matter of law that a young child is incapable of willful and malicious conduct in committing an intentional tort. It is for the trier of fact to determine, based upon the child\u2019s age, experience and mental capacity, whether the child acted in a willful and malicious manner. Cf. Phillips v. Smith, 87 N.M. 19, 528 P.2d 663 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 87 N.M. 5, 528 P.2d 649 (1974) (question of child\u2019s negligence not proper for summary judgment because of subjectivity of determination based on his age, mental capacity, and experience).\nThe Court of Appeals decision in favor of Joe Montoya is reversed, and the decision of the trial court is reinstated.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nEASLEY, C. J., SOSA, Senior Justice, and PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "RIORDAN, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Steve H. Mazer, Albuquerque, for petitioner.", "Gallagher, Casados & Martin, J. E. Casados, Albuquerque, for respondents." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "637 P.2d 841\nRose ORTEGA, Parent and natural guardian of Gilbert Ortega, a minor child, Petitioner, v. Joe MONTOYA and Mark Montoya, a minor child, Respondents.\nNo. 13552.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nDec. 18, 1981.\nSteve H. Mazer, Albuquerque, for petitioner.\nGallagher, Casados & Martin, J. E. Casados, Albuquerque, for respondents." }, "file_name": "0159-01", "first_page_order": 189, "last_page_order": 191 }