N.M. Stat. » Chapter 41 — Torts
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 41-3-1 (2026)

Joint tortfeasors defined

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

For the purposes of this act [41-3-1 to 41-3-8 NMSA 1978] the term "joint tortfeasors" means two or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property, whether or not judgment has been recovered against all or some of them.

History: 1941 Comp., § 21-118, enacted by Laws 1947, ch. 121, § 1; 1953 Comp., §

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2021 · leading case: In re Consol. Vista Hills Litig., 893 P.2d 438 (N.M. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Consol. Vista Hills Litig., 893 P.2d 438 (N.M. 1995). · cites it 6× “The California system of "equitable indemnification," however, is the equivalent of "contribution" in New Mexico under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 41-3-1 to -8 (Repl.Pamp.1989 & Cum.”
Watson Truck & Supply Co. v. Males, 801 P.2d 639 (N.M. 1990). · cites it 4× “The Alder decision was based upon public policy considerations expressed in the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 41-3-1 to -3-8 (Repl. Pamp. 1989), which no longer has any force when joint and several liability is superseded by comparative fault.”
Valdez v. R-WAY, LLC, 2010-NMCA-068, 237 P.3d 1289. · cites it 4× “{3} The Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 41-3-1 to - 8 (1947, as amended through 1987) (the Uniform Contribution Act), is relevant insofar as Section 41-3-1 defines the term “joint tortfeasors” as “two or more persons jointly or severally hable in tort…”
Tom Growney Equip. Co. v. Jouett, 2005-NMSC-015, 113 P.3d 320. · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 41-3-1 (1947) (defining joint tortfeasors).”
Hansen v. Ford Motor Co., 900 P.2d 952 (N.M. 1995). · cites it 4× “For general applicability, it would be inappropriate to decide whether to adopt the specific identity rule or the intent rule based on a statutory construction of the New Mexico Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 41-3-1 to -8 (Repl. Pamp.1989).”
Wilson v. Galt, 668 P.2d 1104 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “h settlement with other tortfeasors, an amount in excess of the entire damage award determined by the jury? In order to answer this question we must first review the common law with respect to joint and several liability, the effect of release of one tortfeasor and contribution…”
Sanchez v. City of Espanola, 615 P.2d 993 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 8× “As both negligence and strict products liability sound in tort, the question of contribution between the defendants is properly decided under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act as adopted in New Mexico, §§ 41-3-1 to 41-3-8, N.M.S.A. 1978. The pertinent sections read:…”
Safeway, Inc. v. Rooter 2000 Plumbing & Drain SSS, 2016-NMSC-009, 368 P.3d 389. · cites it 2× “6 {16} New Mexico also enacted the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA) in 1947 as another method to avoid the harshness of the rule against contribution without changing the underlying law of joint and several liability.”
Leger v. Gerety, 2022-NMSC-007, 503 P.3d 349. · cites it 2× “2d 364 ; see also NMSA 1978, §§ 41-3-1, -2(D) (1947, as amended through 1987) (providing for right of contribution between joint and several tortfeasors); NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1 (1987) (abolishing joint and several liability except in limited situations, such as those involving…”
Leger v. Gerety, 444 P.3d 1036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “Around the time the MMA was enacted, indemnity and contribution 2 claims certainly were litigated in the medical malpractice context.”
Dessauer v. Mem'l Gen. Hosp., 628 P.2d 337 (N.M. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Nor can the Nurse obtain contribution from the Doctor because the Doctor's liability, as a tortfeasor, see § 41-3-1, N.M. *343 S.A.1978, under respondeat superior, is based on the Nurse's negligence.”
State v. Gibby, 432 P.2d 258 (N.M. 1967). · cites it 3× “We next note appellant’s Point XI wherein he complains of the failure to grant him a preliminary hearing as provided by law (§§ 41-3-1 to 41-3-16, N.M. S.A.1953). However, the court found that the preliminary hearing had been intelligently waived by appellant, as was his right…”
Show all 37 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.