About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/restt5039 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations TORTS 3D: APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY TOPIC 1. BASIC RULES OF COMPARATIVE RESPONSIBILITY § 2. Contractual Limitations on Liability N.M.App.2024. Adopted in case cit. in sup. Parent of a minor child who suffered a serious ankle injury during a vault practice at a gymnastics academy sued academy and its owner, seeking damages for the child's injury allegedly caused by their negligent placement of gymnastic equipment. The trial court granted summary judgment for academy and owner, finding that the waiver of liability executed by parent was enforceable and that parent agreed to not hold academy liable for its negligent acts. This court affirmed, holding that New Mexico public policy did not prohibit parents from waiving liability for negligence on behalf of their minor child in agreements for recreational services The court noted that its recent adoption of Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 2 did not modify New Mexico's general rule that liability releases for personal injury could generally be enforced if the terms of the releases were clear and unambiguous and did not contravene New Mexico public policy, pointing out that the terms of the agreement executed by parent were clear and unequivocal and that there was no affirmative expression by the legislature that it intended to limit parental authority to make decisions for their children about the risks and benefits of various recreational activities. Peck as next friend for A.Z. v. G-Force Gymnastics Academy, LLC, 556 P.3d 573, 578. TOPIC 2. LIABILITY OF MULTIPLE TORTFEASORS FOR INDIVISIBLE HARM § 13. Vicarious Liability Nev.2024. Com. (c) quot. in sup. Patient, who suffered a burning injury to her radial nerve when her surgeon attempted to cement a fracture to her distal humerus during surgery, sued surgeon and affiliated professional entities, seeking damages for pain and suffering. After entering judgment on a jury verdict for patient, the trial court reduced patient's pain-and-suffering damages pursuant to Nevada statutes that capped damages against physicians. This court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the award against entities. The court explained that entities were liable not because they committed a breach of duty to plaintiff, but because surgeon's tortious acts were legally COPYRIGHT C2025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.