Product Liability Complaint - New Mexico

COMPLAINT FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY — NEW MEXICO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
3. Background Facts
4. Count I — Strict Products Liability: Manufacturing Defect
5. Count II — Strict Products Liability: Design Defect
6. Count III — Strict Products Liability: Failure to Warn
7. Count IV — Negligence
8. Count V — Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
9. Damages
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Demand for Trial by Jury
12. Reservation of Rights
13. Signature and Service Blocks
14. Verification
15. Certificate of Service
16. New Mexico Practice Notes
17. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF [________________________________]

[___________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

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

COMPLAINT FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PERSONAL INJURY) AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

2.1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is, and at all times relevant was, a resident of [COUNTY] County, New Mexico.

2.2. Defendant [MANUFACTURER NAME] ("Manufacturer") is a corporation organized under the laws of [STATE] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS]. Manufacturer designed, manufactured, tested, marketed, distributed, and placed into the stream of commerce the product at issue herein, and regularly conducts business in the State of New Mexico.

2.3. Defendant [DISTRIBUTOR NAME] ("Distributor") is a corporation organized under the laws of [STATE] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS]. Distributor distributed and supplied the product at issue herein to retailers in New Mexico.

2.4. Defendant [RETAILER NAME] ("Retailer") is a [business form] with a place of business in [COUNTY] County, New Mexico. Retailer sold the product at issue to Plaintiff in the ordinary course of business.

2.5. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to N.M. Const. art. VI, § 13, as a court of general civil jurisdiction. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.

2.6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because each transacted business in New Mexico, committed a tortious act causing injury within New Mexico, and/or maintains continuous and systematic contacts with this State sufficient to satisfy NMSA 1978, § 38-1-16 and constitutional due process.

2.7. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County under NMSA 1978, § 38-3-1, because the cause of action, or a substantial part thereof, arose in this County and/or one or more Defendants resides or transacts business in this County.

3. BACKGROUND FACTS

3.1. On or about [DATE], Plaintiff acquired a [PRODUCT TYPE: e.g., model number, serial number] (the "Product") that had been designed, manufactured, and placed into the stream of commerce by Manufacturer; distributed by Distributor; and sold by Retailer.

3.2. The Product was intended for and was being used by Plaintiff in a manner reasonably foreseeable by each Defendant — namely, [DESCRIBE INTENDED USE].

3.3. On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT] at approximately [TIME], while Plaintiff was using the Product in its ordinary and intended manner at [LOCATION], the Product [DESCRIBE FAILURE: e.g., suddenly failed, malfunctioned, ignited, fractured, exposed Plaintiff to an unguarded hazard] (the "Incident").

3.4. As a direct and proximate result of the Incident, Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent bodily injuries, including but not limited to [INJURIES], requiring [TREATMENT] at [MEDICAL FACILITY].

3.5. The Product reached Plaintiff without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.

3.6. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the Product existed at the time it left each Defendant's control.

3.7. Plaintiff did not alter or misuse the Product, and any conduct of Plaintiff did not contribute to the dangerous condition of the Product.

4. COUNT I — STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY: MANUFACTURING DEFECT

4.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 2.1 through 3.7 as if fully restated.

4.2. Each Defendant was engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, distributing, and/or selling products of the kind giving rise to this action.

4.3. The Product, when it left each Defendant's control, contained a manufacturing defect that caused it to deviate from its intended design, including but not limited to [DESCRIBE DEFECT: e.g., weld failure, missing fastener, contaminated component, out-of-tolerance machining].

4.4. The manufacturing defect rendered the Product unreasonably dangerous to a user or consumer, and presented an unreasonable risk of injury when put to a foreseeable use, as that phrase is defined under New Mexico law and NMRA UJI 13-1402 et seq.

4.5. The defective condition of the Product was a proximate cause of the Incident and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

4.6. Each Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiff under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, as adopted by the New Mexico Supreme Court in Stang v. Hertz Corp., 83 N.M. 730, 497 P.2d 732 (1972).

5. COUNT II — STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY: DESIGN DEFECT

5.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 2.1 through 4.6 as if fully restated.

5.2. The Product was defectively designed in that it presented an unreasonable risk of injury when used in its ordinary and intended manner. Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 120 N.M. 372, 902 P.2d 54 (1995).

5.3. The design defects include, without limitation:

• Failure to incorporate [SAFETY DEVICE / GUARD / INTERLOCK] that was technologically and economically feasible at the time of design and manufacture;
• Use of [MATERIAL / COMPONENT / GEOMETRY] that was insufficient for foreseeable loads, environments, or uses;
• Selection of a design alternative that posed a substantially greater risk of harm than reasonable alternative designs available at the time;
• [OTHER DESIGN-RELATED DEFICIENCIES].

5.4. The risks posed by the chosen design substantially outweighed its utility, considering the gravity and likelihood of harm, the feasibility and cost of safer alternative designs, and the consumer's reasonable expectations of safety.

5.5. The defective design existed when the Product left each Defendant's control and was not substantially altered before reaching Plaintiff.

5.6. The defective design was a proximate cause of the Incident and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

5.7. Each Defendant is strictly liable for the defectively designed Product under § 402A and Brooks.

6. COUNT III — STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY: FAILURE TO WARN

6.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 2.1 through 5.7 as if fully restated.

6.2. Each Defendant knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the dangers posed by the Product when used in a foreseeable manner.

6.3. Each Defendant failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions sufficient to apprise users — including Plaintiff — of the nature, gravity, and avoidance of those dangers, including but not limited to [DESCRIBE OMITTED OR INADEQUATE WARNING].

6.4. Adequate warnings or instructions would have prevented the Incident or reduced the risk and severity of Plaintiff's injuries.

6.5. The Product, by reason of the inadequate or absent warnings, was unreasonably dangerous and presented an unreasonable risk of injury to foreseeable users. Smith v. Bryco Arms, 131 N.M. 87, 33 P.3d 638 (Ct. App. 2001).

6.6. The failure to warn was a proximate cause of the Incident and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. COUNT IV — NEGLIGENCE

7.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 2.1 through 6.6 as if fully restated.

7.2. Each Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing, inspection, marketing, distribution, and sale of the Product, and to provide adequate warnings and instructions for its safe use.

7.3. Each Defendant breached that duty by, inter alia:

• Failing to design the Product with reasonable care to eliminate foreseeable hazards;
• Failing to use reasonable care in selecting components and materials;
• Failing to perform reasonable testing and quality control;
• Failing to incorporate feasible safety features known to the industry;
• Failing to provide adequate warnings or instructions;
• Failing to monitor field performance and undertake reasonable post-sale measures, including recall, retrofit, or supplemental warnings, when defects became apparent.

7.4. Each breach was a proximate cause of the Incident and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7.5. The conduct described herein was undertaken with conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, supporting an award of punitive damages under New Mexico law and NMRA UJI 13-1827.

8. COUNT V — BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

8.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 2.1 through 7.5 as if fully restated.

8.2. Each Defendant that is a "merchant" within the meaning of NMSA 1978, § 55-2-104 (UCC Article 2) impliedly warranted under NMSA 1978, § 55-2-314 that the Product was merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.

8.3. The Product was not merchantable in that it was defective, unreasonably dangerous, and unfit for its ordinary use.

8.4. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family were within the class of persons reasonably expected to use, consume, or be affected by the Product. NMSA 1978, § 55-2-318.

8.5. The breach of warranty was a proximate cause of the Incident and Plaintiff's damages.

9. DAMAGES

9.1. Economic Damages (special). As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur:

• Past medical and rehabilitative expenses, presently estimated at $[AMOUNT];
• Future medical, surgical, rehabilitative, and life-care expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial;
• Past lost wages of $[AMOUNT];
• Future lost earning capacity, in an amount to be proven at trial;
• Property damage and out-of-pocket expenses of $[AMOUNT].

9.2. Non-Economic Damages (general). Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer:

• Physical pain and suffering, both past and future;
• Mental and emotional distress;
• Permanent impairment, scarring, and disfigurement;
• Loss of enjoyment of life;
• Loss of household services.

9.3. Punitive Damages. The conduct alleged in Count IV was wilful, wanton, reckless, malicious, or undertaken with utter indifference to the rights and safety of Plaintiff and other members of the public. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and deter similar conduct, pursuant to NMRA UJI 13-1827.

10. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter judgment against each Defendant, jointly where permitted by NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1, for the following:

• A. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, including all economic and non-economic damages;
• B. Punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and deter;
• C. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by NMSA 1978, § 56-8-3 and § 56-8-4;
• D. Costs of suit, including expert witness fees as permitted by law;
• E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

11. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff 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.

12. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint pursuant to NMRA 1-015 to assert additional claims, theories of recovery, or parties as discovery may reveal, including but not limited to additional component-part manufacturers, successor entities, and any indemnitors.

13. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

Date: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

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

Counsel for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

14. VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF [________________________________]

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], being first duly sworn upon oath, depose and say that I am the Plaintiff in the foregoing action; that I have read the foregoing Complaint and know the contents thereof; and that the matters stated therein are true to my own knowledge except as to those matters stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

[________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME]

Sworn to and subscribed before me this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____].

[________________________________]

Notary Public

(My Commission Expires: [_______________])

15. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY was filed electronically through the Odyssey File & Serve system and served upon all counsel of record / Defendants at the following addresses:

[SERVICE LIST WITH ADDRESSES]

[________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

16. NEW MEXICO PRACTICE NOTES

• Pleading standard. New Mexico is a notice-pleading jurisdiction under NMRA 1-008(A). A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Sufficient supporting facts should still be alleged to defeat a 1-012(B)(6) motion. Madrid v. Vill. of Chama, 2012-NMCA-071.
• Strict liability under § 402A. New Mexico adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A in Stang v. Hertz Corp., 83 N.M. 730, 497 P.2d 732 (1972). The test is whether the product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
• Design defect — Brooks framework. Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 120 N.M. 372, 902 P.2d 54 (1995), recognized a flexible "unreasonable-risk-of-injury" standard. Plaintiffs may proceed under any rational theory of defect — consumer expectations, risk-utility, or reasonable alternative design — and need not establish violation of a specific code, regulation, or industry standard.
• Failure to warn. Smith v. Bryco Arms, 131 N.M. 87, 33 P.3d 638 (Ct. App. 2001), held that the adequacy of warnings and the duty to incorporate feasible safety features are ordinarily jury questions. Plead specific omitted warnings and feasible safety devices.
• PURE comparative fault (FLAGGED). Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682, 634 P.2d 1234 (1981), abolished contributory-negligence and adopted PURE comparative negligence. Plaintiff's recovery is reduced by Plaintiff's percentage of fault but is never barred (except in narrow circumstances such as 100% allocation). This applies to both negligence and strict-liability counts.
• Several liability — no joint and several. NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1 abolishes joint and several liability where comparative fault applies. Each defendant pays its allocated share. Exceptions include intentional torts, vicarious liability, concerted action, and certain products-liability strict-liability claims (§ 41-3A-1(C)). Plead carefully to preserve any applicable exception.
• Statute of limitations. Three (3) years from accrual under NMSA 1978, § 37-1-8. The discovery rule applies to latent defects: the limitations period begins when the plaintiff knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the injury and its likely cause.
• Tolling for minors and incapacitated persons. NMSA 1978, § 37-1-10 tolls the limitations period until one year after the disability is removed.
• No statute of repose for products. Unlike many states, New Mexico has no general products-liability statute of repose; older products remain actionable so long as the limitations period has not run.
• Sealed-container / innocent-retailer. New Mexico has no statutory innocent-seller defense; retailers and distributors remain in the chain of strict liability under § 402A. Stang v. Hertz, 83 N.M. 730 (1972).
• Punitive damages. Available where the defendant's conduct was wilful, wanton, malicious, reckless, or in utter indifference to the safety of others. Paiz v. State Farm, 1994-NMSC-079. No statutory multiplier cap, but constitutional due-process limits apply.
• Government compliance. Compliance with federal regulations or industry standards is admissible but not dispositive on the question of defect or negligence.
• Service of process. NMRA 1-004 governs service. Long-arm jurisdiction over non-resident manufacturers is provided by NMSA 1978, § 38-1-16.
• Removal risk. If the manufacturer is non-diverse from Plaintiff, joinder of an in-state retailer/distributor may defeat diversity jurisdiction. Confirm citizenship of all parties before filing.

17. 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
• 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, § 38-3-1 (Venue) — https://www.nmlegis.gov/
• NMSA 1978, § 38-1-16 (Long-arm) — https://www.nmlegis.gov/
• 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/
• Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)

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.