Lerma v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPT. OF NM

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that every person has a duty to exercise ordinary care for others’ safety
• remanding for a jury to determine if the Highway Department breached its duty to protect the public from foreseeable harm on a state highway
• the dangerous condition arose from the failure to properly construct and maintain a fence along a highway
• “The fact that the danger may have been open and obvious would not obviate a duty on the part of the Department to protect the public from the public’s own foreseeable negligence.”
• \The fact that the danger may have been open and obvious would not obviate a duty on the part of the Department to protect the public from the public's own foreseeable negligence.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).