Summary 2013 WY 141

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: EVELYN DIFELICI, f/k/a EVELYN BARNES v. CITY OF LANDER

Docket Number: S-13-0046

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County the Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge

Representing Appellant: Sky D Phifer, Phifer Law Office, Lander, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Thomas A. Thompson of MacPherson, Kelly & Thompson, LLC, Rawlins, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: November 12, 2013

Facts: Appellant Evelyn DiFelici was injured when she fell after stepping into a hole drilled in the gutter of a street in the City of Lander. She sued the City, claiming that it was negligent in the operation of a public utility or service, and also that she was entitled to recover under a specific statute rendering cities and towns liable for injuries resulting from excavations or obstructions which make streets or sidewalks unsafe. The district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment.

Issues: 1. Did the City’s failure to replace a grate over the drain inlet fall within the waiver of immunity for negligence of public employees in the operation of public utilities and services under Wyoming Statute § 1-39-108(a)? 2. Does Wyoming Statute § 15-4-307 provide a statutory basis on which Appellant was potentially entitled to recover from the City?

Holdings/Conclusion: The term “liquid waste” in Wyoming Statute § 1-39-108(a) does not include runoff or storm water, and there is thus no exception to immunity available to the Appellant. We also find that the hole drilled in the gutter of Washakie Street to drain water into a privately-owned irrigation ditch was maintenance of a street to compensate for weather conditions, and that the specific immunity of § 1-39-120 therefore also bars her claim. Finally, we conclude that Wyoming Statute § 15-4-307 does not create a cause of action based on the negligence of public employees of cities and towns for excavations or obstructions of streets. We therefore affirm.

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

[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. You will also note, when you look at the opinion, that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quotation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summary 2011 WY 8

Summary of Decision January 20, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

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

Case Name: Formisano v. Gatson

Citation: 2011 WY 8

Docket Number: S-10-0138

URL: http://tinyurl.com/46s6p2p

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): C. John Cotton of Cotton Law Office, P.C., Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Rebecca A. Lewis of Pence and MacMillan LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: January 20, 2011

Facts: This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted to the defendant in a worker’s compensation co-employee liability suit.

Appellant and Appellee were employed by a mining company. Appellee had more job tenure, took on some of the crew leader’s duties, and drove the crew’s work truck. Appellant and Appellee were sent out to work on a truck bed needing repairs. They left around 5:00 am and arrived at the work site about 7:00 am. Around 4:00 p.m., Appellee went to call the company for further work instructions. Appellant testified that Appellee reported after the call that they needed to stay until the work was finished. Another employee testified, to the contrary, that Appellee said during the telephone call that company need not send out a night shift crew to finish the truck bed because the work would be done by the 7:00 p.m. shift change, or shortly thereafter.

At about midnight Appellant and Appellee finished the repair work and headed back, with Appellee driving. Appellee was tired, but “feeling okay.” At about 1:00 a.m., Appellee fell asleep, and the vehicle drifted off the roadway, rolling one and a half times. Appellant suffered several herniated discs in the accident. Several company employees testified that Appellee could have called in for night shift replacements at 7:00 p.m., or, after the job was finished, he could have called in to have someone drive them back, or he could have obtained permission to stay in a motel near the mine.

Issue: When viewed in the light most favorable to the appellant, would the undisputed facts of this case allow a reasonable jury to find that the appellee intentionally acted to cause physical harm or injury to Appellant, as that concept is defined under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-104(a) (LexisNexis 2009)?

Holdings: The Court found there were no genuine issues of material fact and Appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Appellee’s admitted negligence in falling asleep while driving simply does not rise to the level of misconduct envisioned by the exception to immunity in the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act. The Court Affirmed.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2009 WY 100

Summary of Decision issued August 19, 2009

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

Case Name: Abromats v. Wood

Citation: 2009 WY 100

Docket Number: S-08-0195; S-08-0196

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

Representing Abromats: Philip E. Abromats of Philip E. Abromats, PC, Greybull, Wyoming.

Representing Wood: Bradley T. Cave of Holland & Hart LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming and Hadassah M. Reimer of Holland & Hart, Jackson, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: The Abromats requested relief from summary judgment to the Woods claiming the district court erred when it found that one allegedly defamatory statement contained in a victim impact statement was not libel per se and that the other allegedly defamatory statement was protected by qualified immunity as a statement concerning a common interest.

Published victim statements: The court’s need for evidence demands that all participants in the process of gathering evidence for use at trial be immune from any liability for damages. The Abromats argued that the Woods were not immune to a civil suit based on their publication of the victim impact statement to a crime victim service provider which is neither a court nor a prosecutor. However, Wyoming law creates a statutorily defined role for such providers and those providers are an important conduit for information between the State and the victim. Wyoming has a strong public policy of protecting victims of crimes from harassment. Therefore, the Woods’ publication of statements for submission to the court in an underlying criminal case cannot be used to support a civil suit for libel. The document was prepared for the purpose of submission to the court and was not published to anyone for any reason outside that purpose.

Conclusion: Statements made by the victim of a crime to a crime victim service provider for submission to the court, which were not published to anyone else for any other purpose, cannot support tort liability for libel because a victim has absolute immunity as a witness when making statements in the court of the judicial proceedings.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/kmbp5g

[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.]

Summary 2008 WY 19

Summary of Decision issued February 22, 2008

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

Case Name: State, Dep’t of Corrections v. Watts; State, Dep’t of Corrections v. Watts

Citation: 2008 WY 19

Docket Number: S-07-0050; S-07-0095

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County, the Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

Representing Appellants: Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, DeputyAttorny General; Misha Westby, Senior Assistant Attorney General; C. Levi Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee: David B. Hooper and Tom A. Glassberg of Hooper Law Offices, PC, Riverton, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Watts brought a wrongful death suit after his wife, who was a contract nurse at the Wyoming Honor Farm, was murdered by an inmate. The State moved for summary judgment claiming they were immune from suit pursuant to the WGCA.

Jurisdiction: Generally, the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an appealable final order. The Court has recognized an exception to the general rule when a district court refused to dismiss a case on the basis of qualified immunity. The Court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the district court’s order denying the State’s motion for summary judgment therefore the writ of review was superfluous and was dismissed as unnecessarily granted.
Section 1-39-106: Questions of statutory interpretation are matters of law. The Act is considered a close-ended tort claims act. The Court reviewed previous cases noting that there are two groups of cases which construe the act in terms of strict or liberal construction of the WGCA. More recent cases state the principle that it is a close-ended act in which immunity is the rule and liability is the exception. The Court concluded the general rule in Wyoming is that the government is immune from liability and unless a claim falls within one of the statutory exceptions, it will be barred. The Court used their standard rules of statutory construction to determine whether the legislature intended that immunity be waived for a particular claim. The Court stated that the statute waived immunity for the State’s negligence in making the building functional. The Court reviewed cases from New Mexico and Maine. They concluded that the clear and unambiguous language of § 1-39-106 within the context of the WGCA indicated that the legislature intended to limit the waiver of immunity to negligence associated with the function of the building structure and did not intend to extend the waiver to negligence associated with operation of the penal institution within the building. Because Watts did not argue that any particular physical defect in the building resulted in his wife’s death, his claim does not fall within the parameters of § 1-39-106.

Holding: Section 1-39-106 did not waive the State’s immunity for negligence in the operation of the corrections system. Instead, it specifically limits the exception to matters associated with the physical building itself. Because Mr. Watts’ claims did not pertain to the physical condition of a building at the Wyoming Honor Farm, the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Case No, S-07-0050, writ of review, was dismissed. Case No. S-07-0095, appeal, was reversed and remanded to the district court.

Reversed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yuz6fy .

[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.]