Vicarious Liability

"New Mexico abolished the doctrine imposing joint and several liability upon two or more wrongdoers whose conduct proximately caused an injury to any plaintiff in any cause of action to which the doctrine of comparative fault applies.The liability of any such defendants shall be several.

In causes of action to which several liability applies, any defendant who establishes that the fault of another is a proximate cause of a plaintiff's injury shall be liable only for the portion of damages equal to the ratio of their fault.

The doctrine imposing joint and several liability applies to anyone who acted with the intention of inflicting injury or damage; anyone whose relationship to each other would make one person vicariously liable for the acts of the other; and to situations not covered by any of the foregoing and having a sound basis in public policy. NMSA §41-3A-1"

Whether an entity is liable for the negligent acts of another is often a fact-bound question. The answer depends on, among other factors, the nature of the relationship between the entities and the negligence. As a result, it is difficult to predict when, under New Mexico law, a lessor will be liable for the negligent acts of a lessee. Generally speaking, however, where (1) a true lease relationship exists, (2) the lessor does not control the lessee’s use of the leased property, and (3) the lessor has no knowledge, or reason to know, about any misuse of the leased property by the lessee; a lessor will not be vicariously liable for the lessee’s negligent acts. See, e.g., Hermosillo v. Leadingham, , ¶ 19, 129 N.M. 721, 13 P.3d 79 (liability for negligent entrustment requires that defendant had control of the property and knew or should have known that the person entrusted with the property intended or was likely to use the property in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others); see also Gabaldon v. Erisa Mortgage Co., 1999-NMSC-039, 128 N.M. 84, 990 P.2d 197 (rejecting vicarious liability of waterpark lessor for actions of park’s lessee). In Rodriguez v. Del Sol Shopping Ctr. Associates, L.P., however the New Mexico Supreme Court clarified that “[f]oreseeability is not a question for courts to consider when determining the existence of a duty, or whether to limit or eliminate an existing duty in a particular class of cases. Instead, courts must articulate specific policy reasons, unrelated to foreseeability considerations, when deciding whether a defendant does or does not have a duty or that an existing duty should be limited.” 2014-NMSC-014, ¶ 25, 326 P.3d 465, 474. Mere foreseeability, therefore, is not enough to make a lessor vicariously liable for a lessee’s acts. 

It is difficult to predict when a lessor will be liable for the negligent acts of a lessee, but, generally, where a true lease relationship exists in which the lessor exercises no control over the lessee or the leased property, and has no knowledge about misuse of the leased property by the lessee, the lessor will not be liable for the lessee’s negligent acts.