Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rael v. F & S CO., INC.

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided May 22, 1980No. 3486Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSutin, Judge

I concur in part and ■ dissent in part.

I concur with the view that F & S is not entitled to indemnification from Onda for all damages F & S is required to pay plaintiff. I dissent on the issue of future pain and suffering. This appeal should be affirmed.

Facts

A firecracker exploded in the face of Everett Rael, 12 years of age. He had burns to his face with black deposits on both corneas. (A cornea is the front part of the eye — the transparent part of the coat of the eyeball that covers the iris and pupil and admits light to the interior). An ophthalmologist testified that the scars under the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Carpenter v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
  2. Braddock v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1955
  3. Coryell v. ConnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Diemel v. WeirichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Shawnee-Tecumseh Traction Co. v. GriggsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API