Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

83 N.M. 686

Attaway v. Jim Miller, Inc.

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided April 14, 1972

New Mexico Court of Appeals · decided 1972-04-14

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1984

4 state decisions

Relies on State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. Sherman · Anderson v. Jenkins Construction Co. · H. A. Seinsheimer & Co. v. Jacobson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1972-04-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

¶2Defendants appeal from judgment entered on a jury verdict against them for personal injuries awarded Attaway.

¶3We affirm.

¶4Each defendant raises separate grounds for reversal.

¶5A. LOVELADY

¶6 Lovelady contends, (1) the trial court erred in requiring her counsel to make peremptory challenges and challenges for good cause which were made in the hearing of the jury; (2) the trial court erred in requiring her counsel to make his motion to dismiss in the hearing of the jury.

¶7The record does not support Lovelady’s contentions. It is void of any proceedings for which error is claimed. To obtain a review, the record on appeal must show such portions of the proceedings below necessary to raise claimed error on appeal. Section 21-2-1(17) (1), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4). Seinsheimer & Co. v. Jacobson, 24 N.M. 84, 172 P. 1042 (1918); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Sherman, 82 N.M. 316, 481 P.2d 104 (1971). Since the record does not show that challenges were exercised, or that they were exercised in the hearing of the jury, or that the motion to dismiss in the hearing of the jury was actually heard by the jury, the judgment is affirmed.

¶8B. MILLER

¶9Miller contends “all the evidence” shows the relationship between Miller and Attaway to be that of master-servant and the relationship of Lovelady to Miller was that of an independent contractor. Miller claims he is not responsible for Lovelady’s negligence. We do not have to decide this issue. Independent of Lovelady’s negligence, substantial evidence of negligence on the part of Miller supports the determination of Miller’s liability. The judgment against Miller is affirmed.

¶10 At oral argument, Attaway asked that damages for delay be assessed in her favor under Supreme Court Rule 17(3) [§ 21-2-1(17) (3), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4) ]. However, Attaway did not, thereafter, file a motion with brief in support thereof. Nevertheless, Attaway failed to meet the conditions set forth in Anderson v. Jenkins Construction Company, 83 N.M. 47, 487 P.2d 1352 (Ct.App.1971).

¶11Affirmed.

¶12It is so ordered.

WOOD, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.
/83/nm/686 · .json · Public domain