Summary 2007 WY 181

Summary of Decision issued November 14, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, 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: Case v. Outback Pipe Haulers

Citation: 2007 WY 181

Docket Number: 06-206

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Nicholas H. Carter of Carter Law Office, PC, Gillette, Wyoming; Jeremy D. Michaels of Michaels & Michaels, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): John A. Coppede and Richard D. Bush of Hickey & Evans, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether plain error occurred when the district court precluded Case from calling a rebuttal witness after allowing Outback time to prepare and present additional evidence in response to the amended complaint.

Facts/Discussion: Outback delivered a load of well casing to a drilling site where Case was working. Case’s legs were injured when one of the casings rolled off the trailer and struck him. Case sued Outback for negligence. The trial court allowed Case to amend his complaint to include Outback’s owner, Brad Coltrane.
Standard of Review: Case did not object to the district court’s refusal to allow the witness’s rebuttal testimony so the Court’s review was limited to plain error.
The Wyoming Rules of Evidence places considerable discretion in the district courts to determine whether to allow the presentation of particular evidence. The Court reviewed Hall v. Hall and Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Curry as examples of the broad discretion allowed. The Court noted that the party seeking to present the testimony must offer an adequate foundation establishing the need for the evidence.

Holding: Case did not object to the ruling precluding him from calling the witness to testify as a rebuttal witness. He also did not ask to make a formal offer of proof. Given the district court’s broad discretion in deciding whether to allow the evidence, Case could not show the decision to preclude the testimony transgressed any clear and unequivocal rule of law. Thus, he could not show plain error.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yswrxy .