 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sam v. Estate of Sam12/12/2003
ear limitations period applicable to Arizona public employees is not applicable to actions involving these employees when the cause of action accrues in New Mexico.
B. The New Mexico Tort Claims Act Is Inapplicable
Furthermore, the district court erred in concluding that the New Mexico Tort Claims Act was applicable to this case, mandating a two-year limitations period for tort actions against public employees. See Section 41-4-15. While Sam may have been considered a public employee acting within the scope of his duties under Arizona law, a question we need not address, he was not a public employee covered under our Tort Claims Act. The Tort Claims Act specifies that only public employees employed by New Mexico governmental entities-not simply any governmental entity-are covered by our Tort Claims Act. See NMSA 1978, § 41-4-3(H) (2003). Thus, Sam cannot seek the protection afforded by the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.
This case involves a tort that occurred in New Mexico, and sovereign immunity and public employment are irrelevant to the issues presented in this case. In determining which law to use, New Mexico applies the law of the state in which the wrong occurred. See Torres v. State, 119 N.M. 609, 613, 894 P.2d 386, 390 (1995) (applying place of wrong rule). Therefore, because the accident resulting in Tyler's death occurred in New Mexico, New Mexico's three-year statute of limitations applies to this suit. See NMSA 1978, § 37-1-8 (1976). Because Plaintiffs brought this suit against the Estate within three years, they were within the limitations period, and the district court erred in applying a two-year statute of limitations.
Although the Estate argues that public policy would be furthered by applying the shorter limitations period provided by either Arizona law or New Mexico's Tort Claims Act, it fails to provide us with authority supporting this contention. See In re Adoption of Doe, 100 N.M. 764, 765, 676 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1984) (stating that arguments not supported by authority will not be reviewed on appeal). We therefore conclude that this argument concerning public policy has no merit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the Trust, and we reverse the grant of summary judgment to the Estate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
WE CONCUR:
CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
|