Summary 2006 WY 147

Summary of Decision issued November 15, 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.]

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

Case Name: Hoy v. K.C. Miller, et al

Citation: 2006 WY 147

Docket Number: 05-294

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): Virgil G. Kinnaird of Kinnaird Law Office, PC, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Defendants): Patrick G. Davidson, Matthew R. Sorenson and Tad T. Daly of Daly Law Associates, LLC, Gillette, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Daly.

Issue: Whether the district court erred in its application of a negligence standard in finding that there was no breach of duty, or stated in the alternative, failing to find that Miller had produced no evidence of the exceptions to absolute liability. Whether the district court erred in finding no proximate cause.

Holding: The properties in question are located north of Gillette. Hoy alleges that water seeps through the bottom of the stock reservoir on Miller’s property and runs down to Hoy’s property creating a groundwater problem for him.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews a trial court’s conclusions of law de novo. The Court reviews a trial judge’s findings of fact to determine if they are clearly erroneous. The Court does not re-weigh the disputed evidence nor do they substitute their judgment for that of the trial court.

Absolute Liability and Proximate Cause: Absolute liability is imposed on certain conduct regardless of whether or not such conduct is negligent. Absolute liability extends to damages proximately caused by the alleged harmful conduct. The Court stated they did not need to decide the issue of whether Miller was subject to absolute liability if Hoy’s alleged damages were not proximately caused by any conduct of Miller. The existence of proximate cause is a question of fact. The district court’s finding on proximate cause would not be set aside unless it was clearly erroneous. The Court reviewed the evidence from Hoy’s one expert and Miller’s three experts. All three experts discredited Hoy’s expert’s investigation as not thorough enough to allow him to validly conclude that there was any correlation between water in the reservoir and Hoy’s high groundwater.
Hoy needed to present sufficient proof that his damages were caused by seepage from Miller’s reservoir. The district court found that Hoy had failed to fulfill the burden. Upon review of the record, the Court found ample evidence supporting the decision of the district court.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/y5hzm9 .