Legal Opinion
Hamel v. Winkworth
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided November 21, 1984No. 7625PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HENDLEY, Judge.
Plaintiffs recovered in a medical malpractice action against defendant. Plaintiffs appeal on the grounds that the trial court inadvertently failed to give a special interrogatory on the need for future medical care. NMSA 1978, § 41-5-7(A) (Repl. Pamp.1982). The trial court ruled that plaintiffs had waived their rights by failing to bring the inadvertent omission to its attention. We agree.
Plaintiffs had tendered a correct interrogatory, NMSA 1978, UJI Civ. 11.40 (Repl. Pamp.1980). The court accepted it, but inadvertently failed to give the interrogatory to the jury after…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. GunzelmanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1973
- City of Albuquerque v. AckermanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1971
- State v. LujanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1966
- Gerrard v. Harvey & Newman Drilling CompanyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1955
- Goldenberg v. LawNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gracia v. BittnerNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1995
- McCarson Ex Rel. Estate of McCarson v. ForemanNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1984
- State v. WilsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
- Nichols Corp. v. Bill Stuckman Construction, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1986
- Matter of Estate of BergmanNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.