Acosta v. Castle Construction, Inc.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ALARID, Judge.
Plaintiff-In-Intervention Jaime Acosta (Acosta) appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial, court erred in granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because Acosta did not establish the element of “contemporary sensory perception of the accident” which is necessary for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. We answer in the affirmative and reverse the grant of summary judgment.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which should only be used with…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Gates v. RichardsonWyoming Supreme Court · 1986
- Corso v. MerrillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
- Ramirez v. ArmstrongNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1983
- Folz v. StateNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
- Archibald v. BravermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fernandez v. Walgreen Hastings Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1998
- Jaynes v. Strong-Thorne Mortuary, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1997
- Twin Forks Ranch, Inc. v. BrooksNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1995
- Gabaldon v. Jay-Bi Property Management, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1996
- Lisa Coward v. Gagne & Sons Concrete Blocks, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2020