Padilla v. Hooks International, Inc.

I concur in the result.

My disagreement with Judge Lopez rests in the law—the meaning of the “Rescue Doctrine,” not with the facts.

Neff v. Woodmen of World Life Insurance Society, 87 N.M. 68, 529 P.2d 294 (Ct. App.1974) did not formulate a statement of the “Rescue Doctrine.” Mitchell v. Pettigrew, 65 N.M. 137, 333 P.2d 879 (1958) did, but it was- not cited in Neff, not discussed in Judge Lopez’ opinion and unnoticed by the parties. In support of its opinion, Mitchell adopted the “Rescue Doctrine” as stated in Annot., Liability for death of, or injury to one seeking to rescue another, 19 A.L.R.…