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. Worksite Safety Allegations Supporting Count I
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. Plaintiff alleges that the conditions for the employer's workers' compensation exclusivity under NMSA § 52-1-9 are met. This action asserts claims against defendants other than the employer. If Plaintiff recovers from another wrongdoer, the employer's reimbursement right is subject to NMSA § 52-1-10.1.

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 owned or controlled [SPECIFIC WORK AREA OR CONDITION] at the project site, where [DESCRIBE HAZARD AND NOTICE].

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.

Worksite Safety Allegations Supporting Count I

20. Plaintiff incorporates these allegations into the negligence claim in Count I; they do not assert a separate damages claim under OSHA or the New Mexico State Plan.

21. Defendant [NAME] controlled [SPECIFIC WORK OR CONDITION] and owed Plaintiff an independent duty under [IDENTIFY THE SUPPORTED NEW MEXICO NEGLIGENCE BASIS].

22. At [PLACE AND TIME], Defendant [DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC UNSAFE ACT OR OMISSION], exposing Plaintiff to [HAZARD] and causing [INJURY]. [If an occupational safety standard covered this Defendant and activity, identify the state-plan or federal provision, its applicability, and the supporting facts.]

23. The pleaded conduct supports the Count I negligence theory to the extent New Mexico law permits; determine the applicable standard's evidentiary role before relying on it.

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 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):

• Exclusivity applies only when the statute's insurance, course-of-employment, and accidental-injury conditions are met.
• Section 52-1-10.1 addresses employer reimbursement from a worker's recovery against another wrongdoer and reduces that right by the fault attributed to the employer or persons for whom it is responsible.
• 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:

• Evaluate any statutory limit against the actual defendant and claim. NMSA § 41-4-19, for example, limits liability under the Tort Claims Act for covered government defendants. This complaint does not assume that every personal injury claim is uncapped.

OSHA:

• New Mexico has an OSHA-approved State Plan covering most private-sector workplaces and state and local government employers. The New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau administers it; federal OSHA covers specified exceptions. Confirm which agency has jurisdiction over this worksite.

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