All garage owners and persons engaged in the business of towing automobiles, storing automobiles or furnishing wrecker service shall have a lien on all automobiles towed, stored or upon which wrecker service is performed when such towing, storage or wrecker service is furnished or performed at the request or with the consent of any person lawfully in possession of such automobile, for the reasonable value of such services and for costs incurred in enforcing the lien. A peace officer who requests towing, storage or wrecker service for a wrecked, abandoned or stolen vehicle shall be deemed a person lawfully in possession of such vehicle within the meaning of this section. The lien created under this section shall be perfected under Sections 48-3-13 and 48-3-14 NMSA 1978.
History: Laws 1937, ch. 150, § 1; 1941 Comp., § 63-314; 1953 Comp., § 61-3-17; Laws 1963, ch. 99, § 1; 1967, ch. 183, § 2.
ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For lien for repair of motor vehicle, see 48-3-1 NMSA 1978.
There is no right to a storage lien on a freight trailer, as a freight trailer separated from a truck tractor is not an "automobile" under the Motor Vehicle Code. Newman v. Basin Motor Co., 1982-NMCA-074, 98 N.M. 39, 644 P.2d 553.
Wrongful sale justifies punitive damages. — Where a trailer is wrongfully withheld and sold contrary to law and a court's restraining order, these facts alone justify the imposition of punitive damages. Newman v. Basin Motor Co., 1982-NMCA-074, 98 N.M. 39, 644 P.2d 553.
Tow company lien does not extend to attached equipment that is distinct from the vehicle itself. — Where defendant towing company, at the direction of law enforcement, towed a damaged taxicab from the scene of an accident to its storage lot and denied a request by plaintiff, the owner of the taxicab, to retrieve certain items from the vehicle, and where plaintiff filed an action in district court alleging claims of conversion and prima facie tort based on defendant's refusal to let plaintiff remove the items, the district court did not err in concluding that defendant's lien on the taxicab did not extend to the equipment plaintiff sought to remove, because liens granted to tow companies are less expansive than those applicable to mechanics or common carriers and do not extend to equipment like that at issue here. Moreover, the parties agreed the equipment was in fact removable without any diminution in value of the vehicle, and there was no evidence that any party understood that the equipment would merge with the vehicle for purposes of the lien or otherwise. Giant Cab, Inc. v. CT Towing, Inc., 2019-NMCA-072.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Bailee's lien for work on goods as extending to other goods of the bailor in his possession, 25 A.L.R.2d 1037.
Lien for storage of motor vehicle, 48 A.L.R.2d 894, 85 A.L.R.3d 199.
What constitutes use of vehicle "in the automobile business" within exclusionary clause of liability policy, 56 A.L.R.4th 300.
8 C.J.S. Bailments §§ 80 to 85; 61A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles §§ 743 to 759.