Pedestrian Accident Complaint - New Mexico

PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — NEW MEXICO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
3. General Factual Allegations
4. Count I — Negligence (Against Defendant Driver)
5. Count II — Negligence Per Se (Against Defendant Driver)
6. Count III — Respondeat Superior / Negligent Entrustment (Against Defendant Owner)
7. Damages
8. Comparative Fault and Insurance Allegations
9. Prayer for Relief
10. Jury Demand
11. Reservation of Rights
12. Signature Block
13. Verification
14. Certificate of Service
15. New Mexico Practice Notes
16. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE [JUDICIAL DISTRICT] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF [COUNTY], STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. D-[________]-CV-[YYYY]-[________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (PEDESTRIAN COLLISION); JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, complaining of the Defendants, alleges as follows:

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is a natural person residing at [ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, New Mexico, and at all material times was lawfully traveling on foot as a pedestrian upon or across the public roadways of this State.

2. Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Driver Defendant") is, upon information and belief, a resident of [COUNTY / STATE] and may be served with process at [SERVICE ADDRESS].

3. Defendant [OWNER / EMPLOYER NAME] ("Owner Defendant") is [an individual / a corporation / an LLC] that, at all material times, owned, controlled, maintained, and/or furnished the vehicle operated by Driver Defendant and/or employed Driver Defendant, and may be served at [SERVICE ADDRESS / REGISTERED AGENT].

4. This action arises under New Mexico tort law for personal injuries sustained when a motor vehicle struck Plaintiff, a pedestrian, in [COUNTY] County, New Mexico, on [__/__/____].

5. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under N.M. Const. art. VI, § 13 because [FACTS SHOWING THE MATTER IS WITHIN THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY EXCEPTED].

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant under [CURRENT BASIS]. If relying on NMSA 1978, § 38-1-16, identify the enumerated New Mexico act and facts showing that each asserted claim arises from that act.

7. Venue is proper in this Court under NMSA 1978, § 38-3-1 [SELECT SUBSECTION] because [FACTS SATISFYING THE SELECTED STATUTORY ROUTE].

8. Under Rule 1-008(A)(3) NMRA, Plaintiff does not allege a specific monetary amount because that allegation is not necessary to this Complaint.

3. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. On [__/__/____] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully crossing [ROADWAY] [within a marked crosswalk / within an unmarked crosswalk at the intersection with [CROSS STREET] / at the intersection of [STREETS] with the WALK signal / along the roadway], in [CITY], New Mexico (the "Collision").

10. At the same time and place, Driver Defendant was operating a [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL] [passenger vehicle / pickup truck / SUV / commercial vehicle] owned by Owner Defendant, traveling [northbound / southbound / etc.] on [ROADWAY].

11. Traffic, lighting, and weather conditions were [describe — e.g., clear, dry, daylight; dusk; nighttime with street lighting], and Plaintiff was [plainly visible / wearing [light/reflective clothing] / within the driver's unobstructed line of sight].

12. The Collision occurred when Driver Defendant [SELECT / DESCRIBE THE MANNER OF COLLISION — e.g., failed to yield the right of way to Plaintiff in the crosswalk; turned left or right across the crosswalk into Plaintiff's path; failed to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians; was traveling at an excessive or unsafe speed; was distracted by a phone or other device; failed to stop or slow despite Plaintiff being plainly visible] and struck Plaintiff with the [front / side] of the vehicle.

13. Although Plaintiff was plainly visible and had the right of way, Driver Defendant "looked but failed to see" Plaintiff, failed to slow down or stop, and failed to exercise the due care required of a driver to avoid colliding with a pedestrian.

14. Plaintiff was crossing in a lawful, prudent, and careful manner and exercised ordinary care for [his/her/their] own safety at all material times.

15. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff — an unprotected pedestrian with no vehicle structure, restraint system, or crumple zone to absorb the forces of impact — was struck, thrown, and/or dragged, and sustained severe, painful, and permanent bodily injuries, including but not limited to [LIST INJURIES — e.g., traumatic brain injury, skull and orthopedic fractures, spinal cord injury, internal organ injuries, degloving and crush injuries, and disfiguring scarring].

16. Because a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle absorbs the full force of the impact directly upon the body, the Collision caused Plaintiff to suffer catastrophic injuries materially more severe than those typically sustained by vehicle occupants.

17. Plaintiff received emergency care at [HOSPITAL / EMS PROVIDER] and has since undergone [SURGERIES / HOSPITALIZATION / REHABILITATION / ONGOING TREATMENT], and will require future medical care.

18. All injuries and damages alleged were the foreseeable, natural, and probable consequence of Defendants' conduct.

4. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant Driver)

19. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 18 as if fully set forth herein.

20. Driver Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise ordinary care in the operation of a motor vehicle, to obey the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code, to yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing within a crosswalk, to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians, and to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon the roadway.

21. Driver Defendant breached that duty by, among other things:

• Failing to yield the right of way to Plaintiff, a pedestrian crossing within a crosswalk;
• Failing to keep a proper and careful lookout for pedestrians, including Plaintiff;
• Failing to exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian as required by law;
• Failing to slow down or stop when need be to yield to and avoid striking Plaintiff;
• Turning across the path of, or into, the crosswalk occupied by Plaintiff;
• Operating the vehicle at an excessive or unsafe speed for the conditions;
• Driving while distracted or inattentive;
• Failing to give warning by sounding the horn when necessary; and
• Failing to maintain proper control of the vehicle.

22. Each of the foregoing acts and omissions, separately and in combination, was a direct and proximate cause of the Collision and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

23. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has sustained the damages described in Section 7 below.

5. COUNT II — NEGLIGENCE PER SE (Against Defendant Driver)

24. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 23 as if fully set forth herein.

25. The New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code imposes specific statutory duties on Driver Defendant for the protection of pedestrians lawfully using the roadway, including Plaintiff. These include, as applicable to the manner of the Collision:

• NMSA 1978, § 66-7-334 — when traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is in the crosswalk; and a driver approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass a vehicle stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross;
• NMSA 1978, § 66-7-337 — notwithstanding any other provision, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway, shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway;
• NMSA 1978, § 66-7-301 — duties regarding lawful and reasonable speed; and
• NMSA 1978, § 66-8-114 (careless driving) and/or § 66-8-113 (reckless driving).

26. Plaintiff is within the class of persons the foregoing statutes were enacted to protect — pedestrians upon the roadway — and the Collision is precisely the type of harm those statutes were designed to prevent.

27. Driver Defendant violated [CITE THE SPECIFIC SECTION(S) APPLICABLE], and was cited for [TRAFFIC CITATION, IF ANY]. Such violation constitutes negligence per se under New Mexico law and was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

6. COUNT III — RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR / NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (Against Defendant Owner)

28. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully set forth herein.

29. At all material times, Driver Defendant was the agent, servant, or employee of Owner Defendant and was acting within the course and scope of that agency or employment; Owner Defendant is therefore vicariously liable for the negligence of Driver Defendant under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

30. Alternatively, Owner Defendant entrusted the subject vehicle to Driver Defendant when Owner Defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that Driver Defendant was an incompetent, inexperienced, reckless, or otherwise unfit driver.

31. Owner Defendant's vicarious liability and/or negligent entrustment was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. DAMAGES

32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and seeks recovery of the following, subject to proof at trial:

• Past and future medical expenses — emergency, ambulance, hospital, surgical, diagnostic, rehabilitative, pharmaceutical, and physician care;
• Future medical and life care — anticipated surgeries, therapy, assistive devices, and long-term and attendant care;
• Lost wages and diminished earning capacity — past lost income and the permanent impairment of Plaintiff's ability to earn;
• Physical pain, suffering, and mental anguish — past and future;
• Permanent physical impairment and disfigurement, including scarring from impact and surgical intervention;
• Loss of enjoyment of life and loss of household services;
• Property damage to clothing, mobility devices, and personal effects; and
• Punitive damages for willful, wanton, reckless, or malicious conduct, where supported by the evidence.

33. Plaintiff seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under NMSA 1978, § 56-8-4, and costs under Rule 1-054(D) NMRA.

8. COMPARATIVE FAULT AND INSURANCE ALLEGATIONS

34. At all material times Plaintiff exercised ordinary care. To the extent any fault is attributed to Plaintiff, New Mexico's pure comparative-negligence doctrine applies, and Plaintiff's recovery shall be reduced only by Plaintiff's percentage of fault, if any, and shall not be barred.

35. Where the at-fault driver's liability coverage is absent or inadequate, Plaintiff identifies and reserves all rights against any uninsured/underinsured-motorist coverage available to Plaintiff under NMSA 1978, § 66-5-301 and any applicable policy (including any household policy under which Plaintiff is an insured), and has complied with, or will comply with, all conditions precedent applicable to any such claim. A pedestrian struck by a vehicle is entitled to make a UM/UIM claim under an available policy notwithstanding that Plaintiff was on foot.

9. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants as follows:

• A. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
• B. For punitive damages where legally and factually justified;
• C. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under NMSA 1978, § 56-8-4;
• D. For costs and allowable expenses under Rule 1-054(D) NMRA; and
• E. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

10. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right, pursuant to N.M. Const. art. II, § 12 and Rule 1-038 NMRA.

11. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add or substitute parties (including any uninsured/underinsured-motorist carrier and any later-identified hit-and-run driver), to assert additional claims, and to conform the pleadings to the evidence pursuant to Rule 1-015 NMRA.

12. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: [__/__/____]

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME] (NM Bar No. [________])

[LAW FIRM NAME]

Attorney for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, NM ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

13. VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], being duly sworn, state that I am the Plaintiff in the foregoing action; that I have read the foregoing Complaint; and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

[________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME], Plaintiff

Subscribed and sworn to before me this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____].

[________________________________]

Notary Public

My Commission Expires: [_______________]

14. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint was served (or will be served with the summons) upon the following by [the Court's electronic filing system / U.S. First-Class Mail / personal service]:

[NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) OF DEFENDANT(S) / COUNSEL]

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

15. NEW MEXICO PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. Personal-injury actions must be commenced within three years of accrual. NMSA 1978, § 37-1-8. Wrongful-death actions (common in pedestrian fatalities) carry their own three-year period (NMSA 1978, § 41-2-2). Claims against governmental entities (e.g., a government-owned vehicle or a dangerous-roadway-condition claim against a public entity) are subject to the Tort Claims Act notice (90 days) and limitations (generally two years) under NMSA 1978, §§ 41-4-15, 41-4-16.
• PURE comparative negligence — the central issue. Under Scott v. Rizzo, 1981-NMSC-021, recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault but is never barred. Fault is apportioned among all parties; several liability generally applies under NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1. This is highly favorable to injured pedestrians, who frequently face crossing-related fault arguments.
• Driver's crosswalk-yield duty. NMSA 1978, § 66-7-334 requires a driver to yield the right of way (slowing or stopping if need be) to a pedestrian in a crosswalk when traffic-control signals are not in place or operating, and prohibits overtaking a vehicle stopped at a crosswalk. This is the primary negligence-per-se predicate for a marked- or unmarked-crosswalk collision.
• Driver's general due-care duty. NMSA 1978, § 66-7-337 imposes a duty on every driver to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on the roadway, to sound the horn when necessary, and to exercise proper precaution upon observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person. This duty applies even where the pedestrian was crossing outside a crosswalk, and is the key predicate in mid-block and non-crosswalk cases.
• Pedestrian's own duties. NMSA 1978, § 66-7-335 requires a pedestrian crossing outside a crosswalk to yield to vehicles, and § 66-7-334(B) prohibits suddenly leaving a curb into a vehicle's path. Anticipate these as comparative-fault arguments; pure comparative negligence preserves recovery regardless.
• Fault state; no no-fault/PIP. New Mexico applies traditional tort liability — no automobile no-fault regime and no serious-injury threshold. The at-fault driver's liability limits and the pedestrian's own UM/UIM (including resident-relative policies) are the principal recovery sources; New Mexico has strict UM/UIM rejection requirements.
• Punitive damages. Available for willful, wanton, reckless, or malicious conduct (see Paiz v. State Farm; Clay v. Ferrellgas); not recoverable against governmental entities under the Tort Claims Act. Confirm the standard and uniform jury instructions before pleading.
• Procedure. Rule 1-008(A)(3) NMRA generally bars an unnecessary specific monetary amount in the complaint. Jury demand under Rule 1-038 NMRA; venue under NMSA 1978, § 38-3-1; service under Rule 1-004 NMRA; amendment under Rule 1-015 NMRA.

16. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 (Chapter 37 — Limitation of Actions; Chapter 41 — Torts; Chapter 66 — Motor Vehicles) — https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/
• NMSA 1978, § 37-1-8 (three-year limitations)
• Scott v. Rizzo, 1981-NMSC-021, 96 N.M. 682, 634 P.2d 1234 (pure comparative negligence) — https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/1981/13088-0.html
• NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1 (comparative fault; several liability)
• NMSA 1978, § 66-7-334 (pedestrians' right of way in crosswalks) — https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-66/article-7/part-4/section-66-7-334/
• NMSA 1978, § 66-7-335 (crossing at other than crosswalks) — https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-66/article-7/part-4/section-66-7-335/
• NMSA 1978, § 66-7-337 (drivers to exercise due care) — https://codes.findlaw.com/nm/chapter-66-motor-vehicles/nm-st-sect-66-7-337/
• NMSA 1978, § 66-7-301 (speed); § 66-8-114 (careless driving); § 66-8-113 (reckless driving)
• NMSA 1978, § 66-5-301 (uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage)
• Gallegos v. McKee, 1962-NMSC-008; Williams v. Burke, 1960-NMSC-134 (allocation of pedestrian/driver duties)
• New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules 1-004, 1-008, 1-015, 1-038, 1-054 NMRA)
• New Mexico Uniform Jury Instructions — Civil (UJI 13-1501 negligence per se; comparative negligence; pedestrian)

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in New Mexico must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.