Summary 2009 WY 11

Summary of Decision issued January 29, 2009

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

Case Name: Krenning v. Heart Mountain Irrigation District and James Flowers and State

Citation: 2009 WY 11

Docket Number: S-07-0271

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, the Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge.

Representing Appellants Krenning: Larry B. Jones and William L. Simpson, Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, PC, Cody, Wyoming; Michael S. Messenger, Messenger & Jurovich, PC, Thermopolis, Wyoming; Thomas W. Redmon, Redmon Law Offices, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Heart Mountain Irrigation District: Jay A. Gilbertz, Yonkee & Toner, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee, James Flowers: Jason A. Neville and Lori L. Gorseth, Williams, Porter Day & Neville, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing State as Intervenor: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Elisabeth C. Gagen, Chief Deputy Attorney General; Martin L. Hardscog, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Bridget L. Hill, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: The Krennings brought suit against the Heart Mountain Irrigation District (District) and its employee, James Flowers, seeking recovery for personal injuries Mr. Krenning suffered in an altercation with Mr. Flowers. The district court ruled that the District and Flowers were immune from liability pursuant to the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA) and granted summary judgment in their favor.

Subject to Governmental Immunity: The Court considered whether the Irrigation District was a governmental entity to which immunity was granted by the WGCA. The Court stated that the District is a corporate body which was founded and owned in the public interest. To the extent that irrigation districts promote the public welfare, they were created for the administration of public affairs. The assessments levied against district members are collected by the same officer and in the same manner and at the same time as state and county taxes which gives the assessments the character of public funds. In addition, the statutes dealing with irrigation districts expressly provide that the commissioners of an irrigation district are declared to be public officers. The Court also noted that in prior decisions, it has considered irrigation districts as public corporations.
The Krennings also argued that the WGCA was enacted generally to limit the scope of governmental immunity and that because irrigation districts did not enjoy governmental immunity prior to the enactment of the WGCA, extending it afterwards was contrary to the general purpose of that act. The Court rejected the argument stating that in recognizing that the language of the legislature was clear and unambiguous, it must conclude that the WGCA language provided governmental immunity to irrigation districts.
Governmental Immunity waived for the District as a “public utility”: The Krennings sought to apply an exception to the Irrigation District. The question of whether an irrigation district was a public utility was a question of first impression for the Court. The WGCA doe not define public utility but the Krennings noted the definition found in the statutes governing public utilities. The Court stated that the District supplies water only to its members and not to the public and that a public utility is open to the use and service of all members of the public who may require it. Just as an electric company supplying electricity to a limited number of distributors is not a public utility, neither was the District.
Summary Judgment Proper for Flowers: THE WGCA extends governmental immunity to the governmental entity and its public employees while acting in the scope of duties. The district court granted summary judgment to Flowers as an employee of the District and subject to governmental immunity. The Krennings contended that he was not so entitled because his actions, an intentional assault and battery, were outside the scope of his employment. However, when the Court reviewed the pleadings, they did not find any allegation that Flowers had acted outside the scope of his employment. All of the allegations were expressly made against Flowers as an employee of the District. In that capacity, he was subject to governmental immunity and summary judgment was properly granted in his favor.
Governmental Immunity Violate Equal Protection Guarantees: In light of the public benefits conferred by irrigation districts, it was apparent to the Court that there was a rational relationship to an appropriate legislative purpose served by extending governmental immunity to irrigation districts.

Conclusion: In recognizing that the language of the legislature was clear and unambiguous, the Court concluded that the WGCA language provided governmental immunity to irrigation districts. Just as an electric company supplying electricity to a limited number of distributors is not a public utility, neither was the Irrigation District. All of the allegations were expressly made against Flowers as an employee of the District. In that capacity, he was subject to governmental immunity and summary judgment was properly granted in his favor. The Court stated the Krennings had not carried their burden of demonstrating that the WGCA’s grant of immunity to irrigation districts was unconstitutional “clearly and exactly” or “beyond any reasonable doubt.”

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ct9nxr .

[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.]