Product Liability Answer and Affirmative Defenses - New Mexico

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL — NEW MEXICO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. General Response
3. Responses to Specific Paragraphs
4. Affirmative Defenses
5. Reservation of Defenses
6. Prayer for Relief
7. Demand for Trial by Jury
8. Signature and Service Blocks
9. Certificate of Service
10. New Mexico Practice Notes
11. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF [________________________________]

[___________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

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

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL OF DEFENDANT [DEFENDANT NAME]

Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby answers Plaintiff's Complaint for Products Liability ("Complaint") and asserts the following affirmative defenses:

2. GENERAL RESPONSE

Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Headings, sub-headings, and footnotes in the Complaint are characterizations to which no response is required; to the extent any response is required, the same are denied.

3. RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC PARAGRAPHS

3.1. Paragraph 2.1: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the same.

3.2. Paragraph 2.2: Defendant admits that it is a corporation organized under the laws of [STATE]. Defendant admits that it designed and manufactured products in the line at issue but denies that the Product alleged in the Complaint was defective or unreasonably dangerous. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the remaining allegations.

3.3. Paragraph 2.3: Defendant admits / denies / lacks information [CHOOSE] as to the allegations regarding Distributor.

3.4. Paragraphs 2.4 through 2.7 (jurisdiction and venue): Defendant admits the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendant [reserves / does not contest / contests] personal jurisdiction and venue. To the extent the paragraphs allege facts beyond bare jurisdictional predicates, Defendant denies the same.

3.5. Paragraphs 3.1 through 3.7 (background facts): Defendant admits that the Product was placed into the stream of commerce in substantially the condition in which it left Defendant's facility. Defendant denies that the Product was defective or unreasonably dangerous, denies that the Product caused Plaintiff's alleged injuries, and denies that any conduct of Defendant proximately caused the alleged Incident or any damages.

3.6. Paragraphs 4.1 through 4.6 (Manufacturing Defect): Denied.

3.7. Paragraphs 5.1 through 5.7 (Design Defect): Denied.

3.8. Paragraphs 6.1 through 6.6 (Failure to Warn): Denied. Defendant specifically affirms that adequate warnings and instructions accompanied the Product at the time of sale.

3.9. Paragraphs 7.1 through 7.5 (Negligence): Denied. Defendant exercised reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and sale of the Product, and in any post-sale obligations.

3.10. Paragraphs 8.1 through 8.5 (Implied Warranty): Denied.

3.11. Paragraphs 9.1 through 9.3 (Damages): Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any damages whatsoever and demands strict proof of any alleged damages, their causation, and their reasonableness.

3.12. Prayer for Relief: Denied. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought or to any relief at all.

4. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Without conceding that any of the matters set forth below are properly the subject of an affirmative defense or that Defendant bears the burden of proof on any of them, and reserving the right to rely on additional defenses as discovery proceeds, Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Failure to State a Claim

The Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under NMRA 1-012(B)(6).

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Statute of Limitations

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to personal-injury actions under NMSA 1978, § 37-1-8.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Pure Comparative Fault (FLAGGED)

To the extent Plaintiff sustained injuries or damages, those injuries or damages were caused or contributed to by the negligence, fault, or other culpable conduct of Plaintiff. New Mexico recognizes pure comparative negligence pursuant to Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682, 634 P.2d 1234 (1981). Plaintiff's recovery, if any, must be reduced in proportion to Plaintiff's percentage of fault, and Plaintiff is barred from any recovery to the extent the trier of fact allocates 100% of the fault to Plaintiff.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Apportionment to Non-Parties (Bartlett)

Pursuant to Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152, 646 P.2d 579 (Ct. App. 1982), and NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1, the trier of fact must apportion fault to all persons and entities — including non-parties and settling parties — whose conduct contributed to Plaintiff's alleged injuries. Defendant is liable, if at all, only for its proportional share.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Several Liability; No Joint and Several Liability

Joint and several liability is abolished where comparative fault applies, pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1. Defendant's liability, if any, is several only and limited to the proportion of fault, if any, allocated to it by the trier of fact.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Product Misuse and Unforeseeable Use

Plaintiff's alleged injuries were caused by misuse of the Product in a manner that was neither intended nor reasonably foreseeable by Defendant. Such misuse defeats the essential elements of strict liability and negligence and reduces or eliminates Defendant's liability through apportionment.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Post-Sale Substantial Alteration or Modification

The Product was substantially altered, modified, repaired, or otherwise changed after it left Defendant's control by Plaintiff or by third persons, and such alteration or modification was the proximate cause of the alleged Incident and Plaintiff's injuries. The Product did not reach Plaintiff in substantially the same condition in which it was sold.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — State of the Art

The design, manufacture, warnings, and labeling of the Product conformed to the state of scientific, technological, and engineering knowledge generally accepted in the industry at the time the Product was designed and placed into the stream of commerce. Defendant is not chargeable with knowledge of risks that were not knowable through reasonable scientific or technical inquiry at that time.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Compliance with Government Standards

The Product was designed, manufactured, labeled, and warned in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and industry standards, codes, regulations, and approvals in effect at the time of design and manufacture, including but not limited to [CITE APPLICABLE FMVSS / CPSC / FDA / ANSI / ASTM / OSHA STANDARDS].

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Sophisticated User / Sophisticated Intermediary

The end user, Plaintiff's employer, or another intermediary in the chain of distribution was a sophisticated user or intermediary with knowledge of the risks of the Product. Defendant reasonably relied upon such user or intermediary to convey adequate warnings and instructions to Plaintiff, thereby satisfying any duty to warn.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Learned Intermediary

To the extent the Product is one for which warnings are properly directed to a learned intermediary (e.g., a prescribing physician, licensed installer, or licensed contractor), Defendant satisfied any duty to warn by providing adequate warnings to such intermediary. Serna v. Roche Labs., 101 N.M. 522, 684 P.2d 1187 (Ct. App. 1984).

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Innocent Retailer / Sealed Container

To the extent Defendant is a retailer, distributor, or non-manufacturing seller, Defendant did not design, manufacture, or modify the Product, sold the Product in the same sealed condition in which it was received from upstream parties, and had no actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect. Defendant's liability, if any, must be passed through to the upstream manufacturer or designer, and Defendant reserves the right to seek indemnification.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — No Defect

The Product was not in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer at the time it left Defendant's control under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A and Stang v. Hertz Corp., 83 N.M. 730, 497 P.2d 732 (1972). The Product did not present an unreasonable risk of injury under Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 120 N.M. 372, 902 P.2d 54 (1995).

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Lack of Causation

Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages were not proximately caused by any act, omission, defect, or product attributable to Defendant. Independent intervening or superseding causes broke any chain of causation that may have existed.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Assumption of Risk (Subsumed)

To the extent recognized in New Mexico, Plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks associated with the alleged use of the Product. Defendant acknowledges that primary express assumption of risk is preserved while secondary implied assumption of risk is subsumed into comparative fault under Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, 98 N.M. 152 (Ct. App. 1982).

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Failure to Mitigate Damages

Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the alleged damages, including but not limited to seeking timely medical care, following medical advice, and pursuing reasonable rehabilitation. Any recovery must be reduced accordingly.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Collateral Source Setoffs

Defendant is entitled to setoff or reduction for any collateral source payments made or available to Plaintiff to the extent permitted by New Mexico law.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Settlement Credit

Defendant is entitled to setoff or reduction for any amounts received by Plaintiff in settlement with any released, dismissed, or settling party pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 41-3-2 (Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, to the extent applicable) and the apportionment principles of NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Federal Preemption

To the extent Plaintiff's claims are based upon alleged design, labeling, or warning requirements that are preempted by federal law (including, where applicable, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, FIFRA, FDCA, the Medical Device Amendments, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, FAA preemption under 49 U.S.C. § 40103, or any other federal statute), such claims are barred by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Punitive Damages Limitations

Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is barred or limited by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by Article II, § 18 of the New Mexico Constitution, including the standards articulated in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). The conduct alleged does not satisfy the wilful, wanton, malicious, or reckless standard required under New Mexico law. Paiz v. State Farm, 1994-NMSC-079.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Improper Venue / Personal Jurisdiction

Defendant [contests / reserves the right to contest] personal jurisdiction and venue under NMRA 1-012(B)(2)–(3) and NMSA 1978, §§ 38-3-1 and 38-1-16.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Spoliation

To the extent Plaintiff or third parties controlling the Product failed to preserve the Product, its components, or related evidence in substantially the condition in which it existed at the time of the alleged Incident, Defendant is entitled to all available spoliation remedies, including preclusion of evidence, adverse inference, or dismissal.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — Indemnity and Contribution

Defendant reserves all rights of indemnity, contribution, and apportionment against any party or non-party whose conduct contributed to Plaintiff's alleged injuries, pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 41-3-2 and applicable common-law principles.

5. RESERVATION OF DEFENSES

Defendant has not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable affirmative defenses and reserves the right to assert and rely upon such other defenses as may become available or apparent during discovery and trial of this action, and to amend its Answer accordingly under NMRA 1-015.

6. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] respectfully prays that this Court:

• A. Enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all counts of the Complaint;
• B. Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice;
• C. Apportion fault, if any is found, in accordance with NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1 and Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682 (1981);
• D. Award Defendant its costs and, where authorized by law or rule, attorney's fees;
• E. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

7. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

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

8. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

Date: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], NM Bar No. [####]

Counsel for Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME]

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

9. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], the foregoing ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL was filed electronically through the Odyssey File & Serve system and served upon all counsel of record at the following addresses:

[SERVICE LIST WITH ADDRESSES]

[________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

10. NEW MEXICO PRACTICE NOTES

• Time to answer. NMRA 1-012(A) requires an answer within thirty (30) days after service of summons and complaint. Stipulated extensions are common; secure them in writing.
• Affirmative defense waiver. NMRA 1-008(C) and NMRA 1-012(B) require affirmative defenses to be pleaded; the defenses of personal jurisdiction (1-012(B)(2)), insufficient process (1-012(B)(4)), insufficient service (1-012(B)(5)), and improper venue (1-012(B)(3)) are waived if not raised. Statute of limitations, comparative fault, misuse, and post-sale alteration must be pled.
• PURE comparative fault (FLAGGED). Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682, 634 P.2d 1234 (1981), governs. Plaintiff's recovery is reduced — never barred — by Plaintiff's percentage of fault, except where 100% of fault is allocated to Plaintiff. Pure comparative fault subsumes most former complete-defense doctrines (assumption of risk, last clear chance, contributory negligence). Bartlett v. N.M. Welding Supply, 98 N.M. 152 (Ct. App. 1982). Defenses framed as complete bars therefore double-function as apportionment vehicles.
• Several liability. NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1 abolishes joint and several liability where comparative fault applies. § 41-3A-1(C) preserves joint and several in narrow categories: (1) intentional torts; (2) vicarious liability; (3) concerted action; and (4) products-liability strict-liability claims. Defendants in PRODUCTS cases should expect that Plaintiff will argue § 41-3A-1(C)(4) preserves joint and several for the strict-liability count; counsel should be prepared with case-specific briefing on that exception.
• Apportionment to non-parties. Bartlett permits apportionment to non-parties, settling tortfeasors, and unidentified third parties. Identify and disclose non-party tortfeasors during discovery.
• No statutory innocent-seller defense. Retailers and distributors remain in the strict-liability chain under § 402A. The practical strategy is indemnification and tender of defense to upstream parties.
• State of the art. Admissible to negate defect under Brooks; not a per se defense.
• Government compliance. Admissible but not dispositive on the questions of defect or negligence.
• Learned intermediary. Recognized for prescription medications and certain professionally installed products. Serna v. Roche Labs., 101 N.M. 522 (Ct. App. 1984); Rimbert v. Eli Lilly & Co., 577 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (D.N.M. 2008).
• Federal preemption. Common in motor vehicle, pharmaceutical, medical device, pesticide, and aviation products cases. Brief preemption defenses early; consider Rule 1-012(C) judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment.
• Discovery rule. Latent defects toll the limitations period until the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury and likely cause.
• Punitive damages. No statutory cap, but constitutional due-process analysis applies. State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).
• Spoliation. Preserve and seek preservation of the subject Product. NM courts impose adverse-inference instructions where spoliation is shown. Torres v. El Paso Elec. Co., 1999-NMSC-029.
• Contribution and indemnity. NMSA 1978, § 41-3-2 (UCATA) interacts with the several-liability regime; right of contribution is preserved among defendants whose share has been paid.

11. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Stang v. Hertz Corp., 83 N.M. 730, 497 P.2d 732 (1972) — https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/1972/9324-0.html
• Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 120 N.M. 372, 902 P.2d 54 (1995) — https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/1995/21728-0.html
• Smith v. Bryco Arms, 131 N.M. 87, 33 P.3d 638 (Ct. App. 2001) — https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/court-of-appeals/2001/f580-2536a-263ee.html
• Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682, 634 P.2d 1234 (1981) — https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/1981/96-n-m-682.html
• Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152, 646 P.2d 579 (Ct. App. 1982)
• Serna v. Roche Labs., 101 N.M. 522, 684 P.2d 1187 (Ct. App. 1984)
• Paiz v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 1994-NMSC-079, 118 N.M. 203
• NMSA 1978, § 37-1-8 — https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-37/article-1/section-37-1-8/
• NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1 — https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-41/article-3a/section-41-3a-1/
• NMSA 1978, § 41-3-2 (Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act)
• New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure (NMRA Rule Set 1) — https://supremecourt.nmcourts.gov/
• New Mexico Uniform Jury Instructions — Civil (UJI 13-1402 et seq., Products Liability) — https://supremecourt.nmcourts.gov/
• BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003)

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.