Summary 2006 WY 96

Summary of Decision issued August 4, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

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

Case Name: Foote, Jr. v. Simek, as owner of Mountain Meadow Ranch

Citation: 2006 WY 96

Docket Number: 05-203

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, the Honorable H. Hunter Patrick, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Laurence W. Stinson of Bonner Stinson, P.C., Powell, Wyoming; and Matthew D. Winslow of Winslow Law Firm, P.C., Cody, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Stinson.

Representing Appellee: Andrea L. Richard of The Richard Law Firm, P.C., Jackson, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether genuine issues of material fact exist on the “breach of duty” and “causation” elements of the employee’s cause of action.

Holding: The district court granted summary judgment to the owner of a ranch where an employee was injured while replacing a gasket on a pivot irrigation system. It concluded that the ranch’s owner did not breach his duty to provide the employee a reasonably safe workplace or to warn the employee of unsafe work conditions, and that the employee’s decision to replace the gasket by himself was an intervening cause of the employee’s injuries.
Standard of review: The standard of review in summary judgment in negligence actions is subject to a more exacting scrutiny because the actions are factually dependent. The Court employs the same standards and examines the same materials as the district court. They examine the record de novo, in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and affording that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the record.
A good portion of the parties’ appellate argument focuses on the district courts reliance on Mellor where the employee was injured while helping his employer and another individual move a heavy cabinet. Appellant claims that the Court’s analysis in Mellor was based on the doctrines of assumption of risk and contributory negligence. The Court agrees that to the extent Mellor relied upon those doctrines, its reasoning did not survive the adoption of comparative fault. Furthermore, the issues in the instant case should have been presented to the jury under the latter construct. Unlike Mellor, the Court could not conclude, as a matter of law, that the owner did not breach his duty to the employee.
“Breach of duty”: The Court found that genuine issues of material fact existed that precluded granting the owner summary judgment on the basis of breach of duty. Whether the owner breached his duty to provide the employee a reasonably safe workplace or to warn the employee of unsafe work conditions in the instant case is inextricably intertwined with the circumstances surrounding the employee’s decision to replace the gasket by himself. The Court stated that it was apparent from both hearing transcripts that in granting the owner summary judgment, the district court adopted the owner’s characterization of the facts. However, that was not the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the evidence presented, therefore summary judgment was inappropriate. Any doubt in that regard must, according to the Court’s standard of review, be resolved in favor of the employee.
“Causation”: These same issues of fact preclude granting the owner summary judgment on the causation element as well. Reasonable minds could disagree as to the effect of the evidence and each party emphasized the same facts in arguing the causation issue as they did in the breach of duty issue. The Court therefore reversed and remanded the district court grant of summary judgment.

C.J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court.

Reversed and remanded.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/lavvx .