Summary 2006 WY 13

Summary of Decision issued January 20, 2006.

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Cook v. Shoshone First Bank

Citation: 2006 WY 13

Docket Number: 05-105

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, the Honorable Edward Grant, Judge.

Representing Appellants: Mark W. Gifford, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Scott E. Kolpitcke and Tracy J. Copenhaver of Copenhaver, Kath, Kitchen & Kolpitcke, LLC, Powell, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Copenhaver.

Date of Decision: January 20, 2006

Issues: Whether the district court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, holding that the record is devoid of reasonable inferences to support Appellants’ legal theories.

Holdings: Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The Court examines the record de novo. They accord no deference to the district court’s decisions on issues of law.
Worker’s Compensation Immunity: The Court has held that where a claimant provides clear and convincing evidence that an employee’s suicide or attempted suicide was the result of mental injury suffered subsequent to a compensable injury, the claim is covered by worker’s compensation. There was no allegation that Ms. Proefrock suffered a compensable physical injury, therefore the claims arising out of her suicide were not covered.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The Court has adopted the definition of extreme and outrageous conduct as that “which goes beyond all possible bounds of decency, is regarded as atrocious, and is utterly intolerable in a civilized society.” The Court reviewed the evidence presented to determine whether the conduct went beyond all bounds of decency. The Court concluded that summary judgment was proper because the evidence did not raise a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Foreseeability of Suicide v. Foreseeability of Harm: Because the Court held that no genuine issue of material fact was presented on the issue of outrageousness, the Court did not address the foreseeability issue in the context of the intentional infliction claim.
Negligently caused suicide: In order for liability to attach for a decedent’s suicide, there must be a wrongful act. The record showed that Appellee did only that which an employer is entitled to do when funds are found to be missing.
Emotional Distress: Mr. Proefrock’s claim for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress required proof of negligence. Because the Court found no genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment was properly granted.
Punitive damages: Summary judgment on the underlying claims effectively disposed of the punitive damages claim.

The decision of the district court is affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/95vm8 .