Sovereign immunity protects Pueblo from liability in crash

[RebLem]

Judge tosses crash suit against pueblo

Nov 13, 2007 07:10 PM MST |KRQE-TV

ALBUQUERQUE - A district judge has dismissed a civil lawsuit against Santa Clara pueblo for a near-fatal car crash involving a tribal vehicle driven by a tribal member who had been drinking.

That crash happened not on the northern New Mexico reservation but 80 miles away in the middle of Albuquerque.

Still Santa Clara pueblo claimed it has sovereign immunity that protects the tribal nation from a lawsuit in this case.

And today state District Judge Valerie Huling said today she had no choice but to agree.

Peggy Reed sued Santa Clara and the driver who hit her after they offered to cover just $2,000 of her $250,000 in damages.

Huling said today her hands were tied, but the victim isn't done fighting yet.

"I believe the tribe should be held accountable for this man's actions," Reed told KRQE News 13.  "We have rights, and we should be protected.

"People should be held accountable for what they do."

Reed's SUV was totaled when Robert Gutierrez pulled out in front of her and hit her in November 2005.  Reed was seriously injured; it took more than a year for her to recover.

Today the tribe's attorney argued to the judge that she has no jurisdiction here and that the Supreme Court has already made up its mind on sovereign immunity.

"If there is going to be any kind of limitation on sovereign immunity it's a matter of federal law not state law," tribal attorney Holly Harvey said. "Even our United States Supreme court has chosen not to limit an Indian tribes' sovereign immunity where there has not been an expressed waiver by tribe itself or some sort of statute enacted by Congress."

Reed's attorney quickly fired back.

"The tribe is saying here is that even though Peggy Reed was harmed off the reservation by a tribal member driving a tribal car who had been drinking and nearly killed, they should not be responsible," David Streubel, Reed's attorney, said.

However Streubel's argument failed to win over the judge.

"I think the court is left with no choice but to dismiss the claims against the tribe for lack of jurisdiction," Huling said.

The decision is a blow to Reed.

"It impacts all of us that someone can come onto public roads and create harm to other people and not be held accountable," Reed said.  "We can appeal to a higher court, and that's our intention."

The judge did not throw out the case against Gutierrez.

She says if Reed's attorney can prove Gutierrez was not acting in the scope of his employment with the tribe he is not immune.

If he was working at the time, the suit against him will be thrown out, too.

Gutierrez's blood alcohol limit was below the legal limit at the time of the crash so he was never charged with DWI.

He pleaded guilty to careless driving, failure to yield and having an open container.

Reporter:  Kim Vallez | Web Producer:  Bill Diven

http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?S=7356269

[carlos]

Here in Argentina, there's a similar non written law. Any public
official, or any person under the protection of the government,
has total impunity and will never pay for the crimes he or she
could have done, except when for political reasons that is
convenient, or when the person looses the protection.

[MishaK]

This bit confuses a number of legal issues. What does "tribal member" mean here? On that hinges this case. If this is merely a guy who is a member of a tribe, then no sovereign immunity should apply, just like you cannot claim sovereign immunity for yourself just because you are a citizen of a sovereign country. Only representatives of the government of a sovereign entity can claim sovereign immunity and even so, such immunity may be limited to acts that fall within their exercise of governmental activities. If this individual was driving on private business, no sovereign immunity should apply. BUT, neither should the tribe be a defendant. Unless the driver was on a trip purposely as an agent of the tribe, i.e. "within the scope of his employment" doing a delivery/pickup for the tribe or something of that sort, the tribe cannot be held vicariously responsible for the acts of one of its individual members. The lawsuit as to the tribe should correctly be dismissed. Note that the question of whether the tribe is the proper plaintiff doesn't absolve the driver from personal responsibility. He remains on the hook personally. This issue goes only to the liability of the tribe. This is not at all clear from the way the article is written. The only reason the tribe has been named as plaintiff is obviously because of its deeper pockets. It is unlikely that, if found guilty, the driver can cover the alleged $250K in medical costs. BTW, this is a nice reminder of the screwed up health care system problem. If there were such a thing as proper universal health coverage and the resultant lower costs of medical procedures, people wouldn't have to sue each other for seemingly astronomical sums. A proper health care system goes a much longer way towards reducing litigousness than any reform of personal injury liability law could ever achieve.