 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. Van Winkle''s Iga Farmer''s Market9/16/1996
ction is the power to adjudicate the general questions involved in the claim and is not dependent upon the state of facts which may appear in a particular case, or the ultimate existence of a valid cause of action." . "A court has subject matter jurisdiction in an action if the case is within the general class of cases that the court has been empowered, by constitution or statute, to hear and determine." . The nature of the action is determined by the pleadings filed in the case by the plaintiff. (question is whether the kind of claim plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of authority conferred upon the court by constitution or statute); ; .
{7} In this case, Plaintiff filed a tort action in district court. We think it beyond dispute that the district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over tort actions. See (district courts are courts of general jurisdiction). Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's claim is limited to a claim for compensation benefits is an affirmative defense because it is a matter in avoidance. ) ("An affirmative defense is that state of facts provable by defendant which may bar plaintiff's right to recover."); ), (same), cert. denied, 88 N.M. 319, 540 P.2d 249 (1975). Because Defendant did not file an answer and raise the affirmative defense, it was waived. , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 911, 62 L. Ed. 2d 145, 100 S. Ct. 222 (1979). Thus, we hold that the trial court did not err in determining that it had jurisdiction over this action, and that the default judgment was not void. See (holding that arbitration clause in a contract did not deprive district court of jurisdiction over the action for breach of contract, but would be treated as a meritorious defense on motion to set aside default judgment).
{8} In support of its position, Defendant relies on . In Cruz, worker filed a multi-count claim essentially alleging a bad faith breach of a workers' compensation settlement agreement. The insurer answered and raised the exclusivity issue by motion to dismiss. The district court determined on a full factual record that the Workers' Compensation Administration had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Cruz did not address the question we face in this case, which is whether a default tort judgment in favor of an employee and against an employer is necessarily void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claim might have been brought before the WCA. Application of the principles set forth in Gonzales and Marchman compel the Conclusion that such a default judgment is not of necessity void. See .
{9} Defendant also points to cases from other jurisdictions that, it contends, have held that when an action is barred by the exclusivity provisions of a workers' compensation statute, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. We note that the vast majority of these cases involve situations in which the employer answered the tort claim filed by the employee and the issue of the exclusivity provisions of the state's workers' compensation act was litigated and resolved on the merits. Moreover, to the extent that the holdings of these cases support Defendant's position, they conflict with holdings of our Supreme Court. This Court is bound by Supreme Court precedent. .
{10} The trial court's order denying Defendant's motion to set aside the default judgment is affirmed.
{11} IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
RUDY S. APODACA, Chief Judge
M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO, Judge
|