•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Two people are drinking and driving. One runs a red light and injures the other. How should fault be apportioned? In 1950, the New Mexico Supreme Court adopted the unlawful acts doctrine – a doctrine that bars a plaintiff from recovering if the plaintiff was committing a “wrong” at the time of the injury. Later, New Mexico adopted comparative fault – a doctrine that apportions fault between defendant and plaintiff and assigns damages accordingly. Recently, the unlawful acts doctrine has seen a resurgence as a defense to tort claims in New Mexico. However, this Comment argues that by New Mexico’s adoption of comparative fault implicitly overruled the unlawful acts doctrine in cases of negligence. The unlawful acts doctrine, a relic of contributory negligence, cannot coexist in harmony with New Mexico’s current tort law.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.