 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hagen v. Faherty2/18/2003
oyed by a private entity, was timely filed within the statute of limitations for actions against private entities. See § 41-5-13.
Notice Provisions Are Analogous to Limitations Provisions
Faherty argues that the notice statute at issue in Lopez is different from the statute of limitations that is at issue in the case at bar. Our courts have recognized that statutory notice requirements are analogous to statutes of limitation. See Española Hous. Auth. v. Atencio, 90 N.M. 787, 789, 568 P.2d 1233, 1235 (1977) (" notice provisions operate as statutes of limitations since they are deemed to be conditions precedent to filing a suit."). This Court has stated that "the Tort Claims Act notice provision operates in conjunction with the statute of limitations section on the issue of a timely claim." Tafoya, 100 N.M. at 329, 670 P.2d at 583. The notice requirement and the limitations requirement in the Tort Claims Act protect similar values. Compare Lopez, 1996-NMSC-071, 8 (" notice allows the governmental entity to protect itself against false or exaggerated claims while also permitting it to identify and settle meritorious claims."), with Jaramillo v. State, 111 N.M. 722, 725, 809 P.2d 636, 639 (Ct. App. 1991) ("The purpose of a limitations period is to establish repose and, with respect to claims against the state, to protect the state's resources from stale claims."). We determine that the notice requirement and the limitations requirement, both of which create barriers to a plaintiff's ability to file a claim and both of which protect the defendant in its ability to defend a lawsuit, are analogous and must be analyzed in the same way as applied to this case. Therefore, we determine that the reasoning in Lopez is not only analogous, but dispositive here.
Elements of Estoppel
Faherty argues that the district court failed to make specific findings, and therefore, even if Lopez applies, there is not sufficient evidence to satisfy all of the elements of equitable estoppel. We disagree. In granting summary judgment, the district court necessarily decided, as a matter of law, that the elements of estoppel had been satisfied. The facts in this case are undisputed, and Faherty has not alleged any facts not included in the district court's findings. Thus, we examine the facts to determine if the application of equitable estoppel was appropriate.
We recognize that our courts are reluctant to apply estoppel against the state. Lopez, 1996-NMSC-071, 20. "Nevertheless, estoppel will be applied against the state when right and justice demand it." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As stated in Lopez:
The essential elements of an equitable estoppel as related to the party estopped are: (1) Conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts, or, at least, which is calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert; (2) intention, or at least expectation, that such conduct shall be acted upon by the other party; (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts. As related to the party claiming the estoppel, they are: (1) Lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question; (2) reliance upon the conduct of the party estopped; and (3) action based thereon of such a character as to change his position prejudicially. 1996-NMSC-071, 18 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Faherty first argues that his conduct in wearing uniforms and badges provided by SJRMC cannot be described as concealment, false representation, or fraud. However, the district
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|