## Facts

- A truck crashed through the front glass of a medical clinic located in a shopping center in Santa Fe, killing three people and seriously injuring others.
- Injured persons and representatives of decedents sued the shopping center owner/operator and the clinic operator for negligence and wrongful death.
- Plaintiffs alleged the shopping center’s parking lot design and traffic controls were unreasonably dangerous and that defendants failed to implement protective measures (e.g., signage, speed bumps, barriers) that could have prevented or reduced harm from errant vehicles.

## Issues

1. Whether foreseeability may be considered in determining the existence or scope of a duty of care in New Mexico negligence law.
2. Whether the shopping center and clinic owed plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care to protect visitors inside the building from a vehicle entering from the parking lot.
3. Whether courts may deny or limit duty without articulating a categorical, policy-based justification independent of foreseeability.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the summary judgments for defendants and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held that foreseeability is not part of the duty analysis and cannot be used to eliminate or limit an otherwise applicable duty.
- The Court reaffirmed a general duty of reasonable care under Restatement (Third) of Torts § 7, including for premises owners and operators toward visitors.
- The Court concluded the lower courts’ “no duty” reasoning functioned as a no-breach/no-causation assessment based on the probability of the event, which is not a proper basis for declaring no duty as a matter of law.
- The Court overruled prior New Mexico cases to the extent they treated foreseeability as a component of duty.

## Legal Principles

- Duty is a legal, categorical determination grounded in relationships and policy, not a fact-specific assessment of whether the particular harm was foreseeable.
- Foreseeability is a fact-intensive concept relevant to breach of duty and legal cause; it may support summary judgment on breach or causation, but not a threshold “no duty” rule.
- Under Restatement (Third) of Torts § 7, an actor ordinarily owes a duty of reasonable care when the actor’s conduct creates a risk of physical harm; denying or limiting duty is reserved for exceptional classes of cases.
- If a court denies or limits duty, it must articulate specific, categorical policy reasons independent of foreseeability.

## Conclusion

The Court clarified that New Mexico negligence law presumes a general duty of reasonable care, and courts may not use foreseeability to negate duty; questions about the likelihood of harm and the reasonableness of precautions belong to breach and causation, typically for the factfinder.


Rodriguez v. Del Sol Shopping Ctr. Assocs., L.P., 2014-NMSC-014, 326 P.3d 465 (N.M. 2014)