Romero v. Mervyn's

784 P.2d 992 (N.M. 1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was on an escalator, and another customer either intentionally or accidentally pushed her. She fell to her hands and knees, hitting her jaw as she fell. At the bottom of the escalator, a salesperson helped her to her feet and out of the path of other shoppers. Wolf, the acting store manager, testified that he could tell. P was in pain and asked her whether she needed a wheelchair or ambulance. P did not. P's daughters were 'very upset, a little bit hysterical,' and kept asking who would pay for their mother's medical expenses.' Wolf told them that D would pay any medical expenses. Wolf claimed that he told P that D's would submit the claim to its insurer, who would make the decision whether to pay any claims arising from the incident. P's daughters helped their mother out of the store, brought the car around, and returned to their home. The next day another of her daughters, who lived in Albuquerque, call to confirm with Wolf his promise that D would pay the expenses. She also asked him if any forms needed to be completed when her mother went to the doctor. He told her to come down to the store and pick up the necessary forms. When she arrived, Wolf told her that he was out of the forms and then, according to her testimony, told her to go ahead and have her mother go to the doctor, and D would pay the expenses. Wolf testified the 'forms' in question were insurance claim forms. P's daughter insisted that Wolf reiterated the promise that D would pay the bill. P consulted a physician and underwent physical therapy for a bill of $2,041. D refused to pay the bills. P sued under negligence and contract. She did not rely on a theory of promissory estoppel. The court granted summary judgment to D on the contract claim, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of D on the negligence claim. P appealed, and the Court affirmed the jury verdict but reversed the summary judgment, holding that the question of Wolf's authority posed a genuine issue of material fact for the jury to decide. On remand, P got the verdict on her contract claim and was awarded punitive damages of $25,000. D appealed.