## Facts

- A customer left a vehicle at an automobile repair shop; at the shop’s direction, the vehicle was left unlocked with the keys inside on the shop’s lot.
- The lot was fenced, but the gate was left unlocked.
- A thief entered the lot at night and stole the vehicle.
- The next day, a deputy sheriff pursued the thief after observing unsafe driving; during the pursuit, the stolen vehicle collided with plaintiffs’ vehicle.
- The collision killed one plaintiff’s decedent and seriously injured another plaintiff.
- Plaintiffs alleged the shop’s practice of leaving vehicles unsecured in a high-theft area created an unreasonable risk of theft and subsequent injury to the public.
- The district court dismissed the complaints with prejudice under Rule 1-012(B)(6) for failure to state a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether a garage that leaves a customer’s vehicle unlocked with keys inside owes a duty of ordinary care to members of the public injured by a thief’s negligent driving of the stolen vehicle.
2. Whether the alleged intervening criminal conduct and subsequent police chase made causation so unforeseeable that the complaints failed as a matter of law at the Rule 1-012(B)(6) stage.
3. Whether prior New Mexico precedent foreclosing duty for “keys left in vehicle” cases should control.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Rule 1-012(B)(6) dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the repair shop owed a duty of ordinary care to the plaintiffs to guard against foreseeable risks of theft and resulting harm.
- The court held breach and proximate cause could not be resolved on the pleadings; those questions were for the fact-finder on the alleged facts.
- The court overruled its prior decision holding that leaving keys in a vehicle categorically negated duty for injuries caused by a thief’s negligent driving.

## Legal Principles

- Duty in negligence is a legal question informed by policy and general foreseeability; a person must exercise ordinary care for the safety of others.
- A defendant may owe a duty to protect against criminal acts of third parties when the defendant’s conduct foreseeably creates or increases the risk of that criminal conduct and resulting harm.
- On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, factual allegations are assumed true; dismissal is improper if the pleaded facts support a plausible claim under applicable duty rules.
- Once a duty exists, proximate cause and breach are usually fact questions; only an extraordinary, unforeseeable chain of events warrants removing causation from the jury as a matter of law.
- Comparative fault allows apportionment among negligent actors, including a criminal wrongdoer, and reduces policy concerns that recognizing duty imposes all responsibility on one defendant.

## Conclusion

The court held that leaving a vehicle unlocked with the keys inside on a lot in conditions suggesting a foreseeable risk of theft can support a duty of ordinary care to the public, and that pleaded questions of breach and causation arising from a thief’s conduct should ordinarily be resolved by the fact-finder rather than dismissed at the pleading stage.


Herrera v. Quality Pontiac, 134 N.M. 43, 73 P.3d 181 (N.M. 2003)