Summary 2010 WY 124

Summary of Decision issued September 3, 2010

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

Case Name: Hall v. Park County

Citation: 2010 WY 124

Docket Number: S-10-0015

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge.

Representing Hall: M. Jalie Meinecke of Meinecke & Sitz, LLC, Cody, Wyoming.

Representing Park County: Larry B. Jones and William L. Simpson of Simpson, Kepler & Edwards, LLC, The Cody Wyoming division of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh and Jardine, PC.

Facts/Discussion: This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing Hall’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hall’s minivan was struck by a County road grader. She presented a claim in 2008 seeking compensation for personal injury and property damages. In 2009, Hall filed a complaint against the County based on that claim. The County responded with a motion to dismiss asserting the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not allege compliance with the requirements of Article 16, § 7 of the Wyoming Constitution. It was dismissed with prejudice because the one-year period of limitations for bringing an action under the WGCA had passed.
Hall did not appeal the dismissal of her complaint. Instead she filed a new complaint in a separate civil action with the same averments as the first complaint but with additional language alleging compliance with the state constitution and with a copy of her governmental claim attached.
The Court noted that, there having been no appeal from the dismissal of the first complaint, and the second dismissal not having been based upon the substance of the second complaint, the question of whether or not either complaint complied with statutory or constitutional requirements was not before the Court. The determination that the savings statute did not apply to the period of limitations found in the WGCA foreclosed any need to consider whether a dismissal with prejudice was an adjudication on the merits under the savings statute.
It is uncontroverted that, under the WGCA, immunity is the rule, and liability the exception. The Court has not previously considered the issue, but other courts have held that, absent specific statutory provisions to the contrary, the doctrine of immunity precludes application of the savings statute in cases involving governmental claims. The language of § 1-39-114 is clear: actions against governmental entities are “forever barred” unless commenced within one year after presentment of the claim. There was no appeal of the dismissal of the first district court case filed by Hall and the second district court case filed by her was filed outside the statutory period of limitations. The “closed ended” WGCA does not provide for liability beyond its specific provisions and there is no provision within the WGCA for application of the savings statute, which is not part of the Act, to causes of action thereunder.

Conclusion: The savings statute does not apply to actions filed under the WGCA. Consequently, the district court correctly determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Hall’s second civil action, and correctly dismissed it.

Dismissed.

J. Voigt delivered the decision.

C. J. Kite dissented, joined by J. Burke: The Justices disagreed that the savings statute did not apply to cases brought under the WGCA. Hall commenced her action in due time within the meaning of § 1-3-118 and Rule 3(b). W.R.C.P. 41(b) makes it clear that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not an adjudication on the merits. Under the savings statute, therefore, Hall was entitled to commence a new action within one year after the July 2009 order of dismissal. Her new action, filed July 27, 2009 was timely and the district court’s order dismissing it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be reversed. C. J. Kite would have concluded that if the legislature had intended the savings statute not to apply, it would have said so.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2ce2z24 .

[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 using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]