Construction Accident Complaint - New Mexico

CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Table of Contents

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Count I — Negligence
6. Count II — Premises Liability
7. Count III — OSHA Violations
8. Count IV — Product Liability
9. Damages
10. Jury Demand
11. State-Specific Notes

Caption

STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF [________________________________]
[________________________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NO. [____]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Parties

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] resides at [ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, New Mexico [ZIP CODE].

2. Defendant [GENERAL CONTRACTOR NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE] at [ADDRESS].

3. Defendant [SUBCONTRACTOR NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE] at [ADDRESS].

4. Defendant [PROPERTY OWNER NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE/INDIVIDUAL] at [ADDRESS].

5. Defendant [EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE] at [ADDRESS].

Jurisdiction and Venue

6. This Court has jurisdiction under NMSA 1978, § 38-3-1.3 and N.M. Const. art. VI, § 13.

7. Venue is proper under NMSA 1978, § 38-3-1 because the cause of action arose in [COUNTY] County.

Factual Allegations

8. The construction project at [PROJECT ADDRESS], [CITY], New Mexico, was managed by Defendant General Contractor.

9. Plaintiff was employed by [EMPLOYER NAME] and performing work on [DATE OF ACCIDENT].

10. On [DATE OF ACCIDENT], Plaintiff was [DESCRIPTION OF WORK ACTIVITY] when [DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT].

11. Plaintiff sustained injuries including [DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES].

12. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against Plaintiff's employer (NMSA § 52-1-9). This action targets third parties under NMSA § 52-1-56.

Count I — Negligence

13. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

14. Defendants breached their duty of care by:

☐ Failing to provide fall protection
☐ Failing to maintain scaffolding and platforms
☐ Failing to secure hazardous areas
☐ Failing to provide PPE
☐ Failing to implement safety plans
☐ Failing to train workers
☐ Failing to conduct inspections
☐ Failing to warn of hazards
☐ Failing to coordinate subcontractor work
☐ [OTHER SPECIFIC NEGLIGENCE]

15. Defendants' negligence proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries.

Count II — Premises Liability

16. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

17. Defendant Property Owner owed Plaintiff a duty of ordinary care as a person lawfully on the premises under Vigil v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 2014-NMCA-012.

18. Defendant Property Owner breached this duty by:

☐ Failing to maintain safe premises
☐ Failing to warn of hazards
☐ Retaining control over site safety
☐ [OTHER BREACHES]

19. The premises condition proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries.

Count III — OSHA Violations

20. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

21. Federal OSHA standards (29 CFR Part 1926) and New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Act (NMSA § 50-9-1 et seq.) apply.

22. Defendants violated:

☐ 29 CFR 1926.451 et seq. — Scaffolding
☐ 29 CFR 1926.501 et seq. — Fall protection
☐ 29 CFR 1926.1400 et seq. — Cranes and Derricks in Construction (Subpart CC)
☐ 29 CFR 1926.651 et seq. — Excavation
☐ [OTHER VIOLATIONS]

23. These violations are evidence of negligence.

Count IV — Product Liability

24. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

25. Defendant Manufacturer designed, manufactured, and/or distributed [EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION].

26. The product was defective. Under NMSA § 56-12-1 et seq. (Uniform Commercial Code) and New Mexico common law (Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 120 N.M. 372 (1995)), Defendant is strictly liable for defective products.

27. The defective product proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries.

Damages

28. Plaintiff has suffered:

a. Past and future medical expenses;
b. Past and future lost wages and loss of earning capacity;
c. Physical pain and suffering;
d. Mental anguish and emotional distress;
e. Permanent disability;
f. Loss of enjoyment of life;
g. Loss of consortium (if applicable);
h. Punitive damages where Defendants' conduct was malicious, willful, reckless, wanton, or fraudulent;
i. All other compensatory damages.

Jury Demand

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues pursuant to N.M. Const. art. II, § 12.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants for compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
[ATTORNEY NAME], Esq.
[BAR NUMBER]
[FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY], New Mexico [ZIP CODE]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]

Attorney for Plaintiff

Date: [__/__/____]

State-Specific Notes — New Mexico

Workers' Compensation Exclusivity (NMSA § 52-1-9):

• Exclusive remedy against employer; exception for intentional acts
• Third-party claims under § 52-1-56; employer has subrogation rights
• Employers with 3+ employees must carry workers' comp; CID-licensed contractors have specific requirements

Several Liability (NMSA § 41-3A-1):

• In a cause of action to which comparative fault applies, liability is generally several and proportional under subsections (A)-(B)
• Subsection (C) preserves joint and several liability for intentional injury, specified vicarious liability, specified strict products liability, and situations with a sound public-policy basis
• Determine the comparative-fault doctrine and any plaintiff-fault effect from controlling case law rather than treating § 41-3A-1 as the source of a pure-comparative rule

Statute of Limitations:

• Personal injury: THREE YEARS (§ 37-1-8)
• Wrongful death: THREE YEARS (§ 41-2-2)

Damage Caps:

• No statutory cap on compensatory or punitive damages in general personal injury cases
• NM Supreme Court has declared damage caps unconstitutional (Thompson v. City of Albuquerque)

OSHA:

• No state OSHA plan for private sector; federal OSHA applies
• NM Occupational Health and Safety Bureau covers some state standards

Court System:

• District Court is the trial court of general jurisdiction

Sources and References:

• NMSA § 41-3A-1 — Comparative Fault
• NMSA § 52-1-9 — Workers' Comp Exclusivity