{
  "id": 1582486,
  "name": "NEW MEXICO STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION and State of New Mexico, Petitioners, v. Betty FERGUSON, Guardian and Conservator of the Estate of Robert Lynne Schleuter, an Incapacitated and Protected Person, Santiago G. Chavez, Sr., Personal Representative of the Estate of David Chavez, Deceased, and Ruben Chavez, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "New Mexico State Highway Commission v. Ferguson",
  "decision_date": "1982-09-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 13743",
  "first_page": "680",
  "last_page": "682",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.M. 680"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "652 P.2d 230"
    }
  ],
  "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": "98 N.M. 3",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1582524
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/98/0003-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N.M. 654",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1575571
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/95/0654-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 N.M. 718",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1582481
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/98/0718-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 313,
    "char_count": 4878,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.772,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1005810419539152e-07,
      "percentile": 0.76174228690553
    },
    "sha256": "f843a6cea40e2ef839fcc76c1452bc151dbf655ccd4220675c5fb8a3e952ed12",
    "simhash": "1:9d5dd545d4e589da",
    "word_count": 766
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:13:49.367595+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "PAYNE, FEDERICI and RIORDAN, JJ., concur.",
      "SOSA, Senior Justice, respectfully dissents and adopts the Court of Appeals opinion as his own."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "NEW MEXICO STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION and State of New Mexico, Petitioners, v. Betty FERGUSON, Guardian and Conservator of the Estate of Robert Lynne Schleuter, an Incapacitated and Protected Person, Santiago G. Chavez, Sr., Personal Representative of the Estate of David Chavez, Deceased, and Ruben Chavez, Respondents."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nEASLEY, Chief Justice.\nRespondents sued for personal injuries and wrongful death, alleging that petitioners\u2019 negligent design, construction, and maintenance of a state highway caused the vehicle in which respondents were riding to go off the road. Petitioners State of New Mexico (State) and New Mexico State Highway Commission (Commission) moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on grounds that notice under the Tort Claims Act had not been given within the statutory period. The trial court granted the motion.\nThe trial court dismissed defendant Valencia County based on the finding that the County had no duty to maintain the state highway. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, claiming that the notice provision of the Act, Section 41-4H6, N.M. S.A.1978 (Repl.Pamp.1982), was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order dismissing Valencia County and reversed the order dismissing the State and the Commission.\nThe Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that notice of the occurrence to the New Mexico State Police, as evidenced by a State Police report attached to respondents\u2019 answer to interrogatories, created \u201ca condition of actual notice upon the governmental entities, defendants New Mexico State Highway Commission and the State of New Mexico.\u201d The State and the Commission petitioned for certiorari, and we granted.\nWe consider the question of whether an accident report prepared by the New Mexico State Police constitutes actual notice within the meaning of Section 41-4-16(B) to the State and to all state agencies. We hold that it does not.\nWe quote the reasoning relied on by the Court of Appeals in reaching its erroneous decision:\nThe notice statute, Section 41-4-16B, denies maintenance of suit if written notice has not been given as provided in Subsection A \u201cunless the governmental entity had actual notice of the occurrence.\u201d \u201cGovernmental entity\u201d is defined in Section 41-4-3B as \u201cthe state or any local [sic] body as defined in Subsection C and G of this section.\u201d Subsection G declares that \u201c \u2018state\u2019 or \u2018state agency\u2019 means the state of New Mexico or any of its branches, agencies, departments, boards, instrumentalities, or institutions.\u201d The State Police Department and the State Highway Department fit the statutory description of \u201cstate\u201d or \u201cstate agency.\u201d We hold that the clear language of the Act itself creates a condition of actual notice upon the governmental entities, defendants New Mexico State Highway Commission and the State of New Mexico, because at least one of the State\u2019s \u201cbranches, agencies, departments, boards, instrumentalities or institutions\u201d had actual notice.\nFerguson v. New Mexico State Highway Commission, (1981), 98 N.M. 718, 652 P.2d 740 (Ct.App.1981) (emphasis in original).\nBy the logic of this decision, notice to any of the state\u2019s \u201cbranches, agencies, departments, boards, instrumentalities or institutions\u201d creates a condition of actual notice on the state or any state agency. This interpretation of the notice statute defies reason and common sense. The notice statute says \u201cunless the governmental entity had actual notice of the occurrence.\u201d Section 41-4-16(B), N.M.S.A.1978 (Repl.Pamp. 1982) (emphasis added). What governmental entity did the Legislature have in mind? The statute does not say \u201cany\u201d governmental entity, or \u201cany\u201d employee in state government. We are of the opinion that the statute means the particular agency that caused the alleged harm must have actual notice before written notice is not required.\nThe purpose of the notice provisions of the Tort Claims Act is to ensure that the agency allegedly at fault is notified that it may be subject to a lawsuit. See Martinez v. City of Clovis, 95 N.M. 654, 625 P.2d 583 (Ct.App.1980). We will construe a statute to give it its intended effect. Section 12-2-2, N.M.S.A.1978; Wells v. County of Valencia, 98 N.M. 3, 644 P.2d 517 (1982).\nWe reverse and remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues raised on appeal, and for any other proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nPAYNE, FEDERICI and RIORDAN, JJ., concur.\nSOSA, Senior Justice, respectfully dissents and adopts the Court of Appeals opinion as his own.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EASLEY, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shaffer, Butt, Thornton & Baehr, Deborah S. Davis, Albuquerque, for petitioners.",
      "Melvin L. Robins, Albuquerque, for respondents.",
      "Thomas C. Esquibel, Dist. Atty., Los Lunas, for Valencia County Bd. of Com\u2019rs.",
      "John W. Cassell, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, amicus curiae."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "652 P.2d 230\nNEW MEXICO STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION and State of New Mexico, Petitioners, v. Betty FERGUSON, Guardian and Conservator of the Estate of Robert Lynne Schleuter, an Incapacitated and Protected Person, Santiago G. Chavez, Sr., Personal Representative of the Estate of David Chavez, Deceased, and Ruben Chavez, Respondents.\nNo. 13743.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nSept. 27, 1982.\nShaffer, Butt, Thornton & Baehr, Deborah S. Davis, Albuquerque, for petitioners.\nMelvin L. Robins, Albuquerque, for respondents.\nThomas C. Esquibel, Dist. Atty., Los Lunas, for Valencia County Bd. of Com\u2019rs.\nJohn W. Cassell, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, amicus curiae."
  },
  "file_name": "0680-01",
  "first_page_order": 718,
  "last_page_order": 720
}