{
  "id": 1584690,
  "name": "Janey COZART and Walton Cozart, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The TOWN OF BERNALILLO, a Municipality, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cozart v. Town of Bernalillo",
  "decision_date": "1983-05-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7050",
  "first_page": "737",
  "last_page": "739",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "99 N.M. 737"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "663 P.2d 713"
    }
  ],
  "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": "87 N.M. 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2835112
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/87/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.M. 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1555173
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/97/0563-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.M. 447",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1555088
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/97/0447-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.M. 728",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1555167
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/97/0728-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "568 P.2d 1233",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2867153
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/90/0787-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N.M. 787",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2872120,
        2867153
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/90/0787-02",
        "/nm/90/0787-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.M. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1573099
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/94/0368-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 401,
    "char_count": 5846,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.769,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.510847350901879e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5240625997886363
    },
    "sha256": "16b1651a15146b7e4b6265ddfdd05269b9ba64d46486d6ce9029d63300953676",
    "simhash": "1:cb03b03fc5c926da",
    "word_count": 965
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:40.875408+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "LOPEZ and BIVINS, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Janey COZART and Walton Cozart, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The TOWN OF BERNALILLO, a Municipality, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWALTERS, Chief Judge.\nThe Town of Bernalillo has brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court\u2019s denial of its motion to dismiss or to grant summary judgment.\nThe alleged injury occurred on July 31, 1980; suit was filed on July 29, 1982. Defendant contends that the one-year limitation of NMSA 1978, \u00a7 37-1-24, applies; the trial court held that \u00a7 41 \u2014 4-15 of the Tort Claims Act, NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 41-4-1, et seq., (Repl.Pamp.1982), allowing two years within which to bring suit, supercedes \u00a7 37-1-24. We affirm.\nThe order authorizing the interlocutory appeal recites that \u201cthere is a conflict between the limitation of actions\u201d provisions of the two statutes. The conflict is patent.\nSection 37-1-24 was enacted in 1941 and has remained on the books since then, unchanged. It refers to the time for bringing suits in negligence against \u201cany city, town or village, or any officers thereof.\u201d The Tort Claims Act, passed by the 1976 Legislature, became effective July 1, 1976 and was amended or added to in 1977, 1981 and 1982 in areas not pertinent to this case. It granted immunity to \u201ca governmental body and any public employee\u201d from tort liability, except as otherwise set out in the Act. One of the exceptions of immunity is for damages resulting from negligence of a public employee in the operation of a public utility, \u00a7 41 \u2014 4-8, which is the gist of plaintiff\u2019s complaint.\nSection 41 \u2014 4-3 B of the Act defines \u201cgovernmental entity\u201d as \u201cthe state or any local public body\u201d; \u201clocal public body\u201d is defined in \u00a7 41 \u2014 4-3 C as \u201call political subdivisions of the state and their agencies, instrumentalities and institutions.\u201d That a town or municipality is a local public body under the Act is not open to question. See, e.g., Holiday Management Co. v. City of Santa Fe, 94 N.M. 368, 610 P.2d 1197 (1980); Espanola Housing Authority v. Atencio, 90 N.M. 787, 568 P.2d 1233 (1977); McCurry v. City of Farmington, 97 N.M. 728, 643 P.2d 292 (Ct.App.1982).\nSection 41-4-17 of the Act provides that the Tort Claims Act \u201cshall be the exclusive remedy\u201d for claims brought against a governmental entity or its employees. Defendant argues that the Legislature surely knew of the \u201cspecific\u201d time limitation existing under \u00a7 37-1-24, supra, at the time it passed the Tort Claims Act, and that its failure to repeal \u00a7 37-1-24 at that time is indicative of its intent to exempt \u201csuits against cities and towns\u201d from the \u201cgeneral\u201d two-year limitation of \u00a7 41 \u2014 4-15, supra.\nA somewhat similar argument was rejected in DeVargas v. State ex rel. N.M. Dept. of Corr., 97 N.M. 447, 640 P.2d 1327 (1981), cert. quashed, 97 N.M. 563, 642 P.2d 166 (1982), where the general Chapter 37 Limitations of Actions provisions of \u00a7 37-1\u20144 and \u00a7 37-1-8 were examined to determine whether, the original complaint not being sufficient to allow \u201crelation back,\u201d plaintiff\u2019s amended complaint for violation of his civil rights was timely if filed within three or four years from the date of the alleged injury. The supreme court, in its opinion quashing certiorari, held that a claim against a law enforcement officer of a public body was more aptly governed by the specific limitation provisions of \u00a7\u25a0 41 \u2014 4-15 of the Tort Claims Act than by the general statute of limitations, \u00a7 37-1-8, for injury to the person. Therefore, the two-year limitation of the Tort Claims Act applied.\nDeVargas is not precisely on point, but it does indicate the supreme court\u2019s view that an action against a governmental entity is included in and controlled by the Tort Claims Act. That view is supported by the rules of statutory construction which recognize that repeals by implication are not favored, but in cases concerned with an earlier and later statute where the later statute \u201cis so broad in its terms and so clear and explicit in its words as to show it was intended to cover the whole subject, and therefore to displace the prior statute,\u201d the later statute will prevail. Galvan v. City of Albuquerque, 87 N.M. 235, 531 P.2d 1208 (1975).\nThe more recently enacted Tort Claims Act embraces within its terms every governmental entity, including cities, towns and villages. Section 41 \u2014 4-3 B and C, supra. Section 41 \u2014 4-16, in listing department and entity heads who are to be given notice, includes \u201cthe mayor of the municipality for claims against the municipality.\u201d The venue section, \u00a7 41 \u2014 4-18, provides that venue, except as otherwise covered specifically for suits against the state or its public employees, \u201cshall be in the county in which the principal offices of the governing body of the local public body is located.\u201d Section 41-4-20 requires \u201clocal public bodies\u201d to provide certain insurance coverages; \u00a7 41-4-25 refers to elective participation of municipalities in the public liability fund or, alternatively, to establishment of municipal public liability funds; \u00a7\u00a7 41 \u2014 4\u201426 and -27 provide for ordinances and agreements of home rule municipalities relative to the method for payment of claims made under the Tort Claims Act. All of these \u201cclear and explicit\u201d terms within the Tort Claims Act exemplify the intent of the Legislature to bring within that Act all of the law relevant to claims against any local public body or its employees. Galvan, supra. Section 37-1-24, supra, does not apply any longer to tort suits brought against cities, towns or villages, or against their employees.\nThe trial court\u2019s order denying defendant\u2019s motion is AFFIRMED.\nLOPEZ and BIVINS, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WALTERS, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles R. Finley, Warner & Finley, Albuquerque, N.M., for plaintiffs-appellees.",
      "Gordon J. McCulloch, Bradley & McCulloch, P.A., Albuquerque, N.M., for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "663 P.2d 713\nJaney COZART and Walton Cozart, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The TOWN OF BERNALILLO, a Municipality, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 7050.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMay 5, 1983.\nCharles R. Finley, Warner & Finley, Albuquerque, N.M., for plaintiffs-appellees.\nGordon J. McCulloch, Bradley & McCulloch, P.A., Albuquerque, N.M., for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0737-01",
  "first_page_order": 769,
  "last_page_order": 771
}