Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an eighth grade student at a junior high school, was injured when she slipped and fell in the locker room of the junior high school. Plaintiff filed suit against the School District claiming that the it had negligently failed to operate and maintain the junior high school building in a reasonably safe condition. The district court entered judgment in favor of the School District. Both parties appealed. Plaintiff challenged the district court’s judgment in favor of the School District, and the School District challenged the court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the School District, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proving the existence of a dangerous condition or that the School District did not exercise ordinary care in maintaining the building; and (2) declined to review the court’s ruling on summary judgment. View "Halvorson v. Sweetwater County School Dist." on Justia Law

Jerome Knight, who was employed by M&M Welding Services, LLC, and his supervisor, Victory McCoy, who was one of the owners of M&M, were killed in an automobile accident. McCoy was driving the vehicle when the accident occurred. Plaintiff, as Decedent’s personal representative, filed a wrongful death action against the McCoy Estate and M&M. The district court granted summary judgment as to claims against M&M on grounds of employer immunity under the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act. The court then granted summary judgment in favor of the McCoy Estate on grounds of defective service of process, lack of personal jurisdiction, and expiration of the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded that M&M’s employer immunity under the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act barred Plaintiff’s wrongful death action against M&M; but (2) erred in determining that Plaintiff’s action against the McCoy Estate was barred by the statute of limitations. View "Knight v. Estate of McCoy" on Justia Law

After Mother was told by her nine-year-old son, GT, that Father, who served in the United States Air Force (USAF,) was watching GT shower, Mother arranged for GT to see a Counselor. Counselor reported to law enforcement and then USAF authorities regarding the suspected child abuse. After the USAF authorities completed their investigation, they concluded that the preponderance of the evidence did not support further action. Father filed a defamation complaint, alleging that Mother and Counselor made intentionally malicious and baseless allegations of sexual abuse to law enforcement and USAF authorities. The district court granted summary judgment for Mother and Counselor, concluding that the defendants acted in good faith in reporting the allegations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to immunity that (1) Counselor acted in bad faith under the child abuse reporting statute, and (2) Mother made false statements to parties outside the scope of the child abuse investigation. View "Thomas v. Sumner" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of their children, filed a complaint against Defendants, alleging injury resulting from their rental of a house containing black mold. Defendants made an offer of settlement pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 68, which Plaintiffs did not accept. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed certain claims, and the district court entered judgment as a matter of law for Defendants on the remaining claims. Thereafter, Defendants filed a certificate of costs through which they sought an award of costs pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 68 and 54(d) and Uniform Rules for District Courts (U.R.D.C.) 501. The district court awarded costs. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing, among other things, that the court erred in awarding costs pursuant to rule 68. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s award of costs, holding that Rule 68 did not apply to the award of costs in this matter, and that, instead, costs were governed by Rule 54(d). View "Graus v. Ok Invs., Inc." on Justia Law

Sister filed a negligence action against Brother for injuries she sustained in a single-vehicle accident that occurred in Montana. Brother moved for summary judgment, contending that because the accident occurred in Montana, Wyoming’s borrowing statute required application of Montana’s three-year statute of limitations, and therefore, Sister’s action was barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) rejecting application of Montana’s choice-of-law statutes in applying Wyoming’s borrowing statute; (2) determining that Sister’s cause of action arose in Montana; and (3) applying Montana’s three-year statute of limitations to bar Sister’s cause of action. View "Boutelle v. Boutelle" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Irene was injured after being struck by a vehicle driven by Douglas Downs. Downs had been arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol two hours before the incident, but Eric Overlie, a licensed bail bondsman and an agent of Lederman bonding company, posted bail to procure Downs’ release from custody. Seneca Insurance Company guaranteed the bond. Irene and the conservator of Irene’s minor children filed a negligence action against Overlie, Lederman, and Seneca. The district court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, concluding that the suit had not been filed within the two-year statute of limitations that governs causes of action arising from the rendering of licensed or professional services. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the facts in the complaint did not establish that Overlie was rendering licensed or professional services when he released Downs from his custody. View "DeLauter v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

After an exhaust pipe in the furnace in their home ruptured, Richard and Mary Horning were diagnosed with having sustained severe carbon monoxide poisoning. The Hornings sued Penrose Plumbing & Heating, Inc. and others, alleging that Penrose was negligent in installing the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system. The district court granted summary judgment for Penrose, determining that the Hornings did not file their complaint within the applicable ten-year statute of repose. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in its interpretation of the applicable statute of repose; and (2) under the facts of this case, the Hornings’ complaint was timely filed. View "Horning v. Penrose Plumbing & Heating Inc." on Justia Law

A vehicle owned by Kindel Concrete LLC and driven by one of its employees, Tim Ouimette, rear-ended Kim Bolding’s vehicle. Bolding filed suit against Kindel and the Employee, alleging negligence and negligent entrustment. Bolding and Ouimette settled, and default was entered against Kindel. After a default judgment hearing, the court ruled against Bolding, concluding that she failed to prove causation and damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded that Bolding failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the future medical expenses she claimed were reasonably probable to occur as the result of the accident; (2) did not abuse its discretion by when it refused to settle the record pursuant to Wyo. R. App. P. 3.03; and (3) did not abuse its discretion when it found that Bolding had not met her burden to prove her damages were caused by Kindel’s negligence. View "Bolding v. Kindel Concrete, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against four defendants alleging that they conspired to fabricate a mental incompetency determination in connection with criminal proceedings filed against Plaintiff in Utah. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s case for failing to properly serve the defendants within ninety days of filing the complaint. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) questions existed whether the affidavits of service on three of the defendants established a prima case of valid service, and the fourth defendant waived any objection to lack of proper service; (2) the district court did not err in failing to enter a default against the defendants; and (3) the district judge did not err in not granting Plaintiff’s motion to transfer the case to another district court. Remanded for a hearing to determine the validity of service of process. View "Lundahl v. Gregg" on Justia Law

In 2008, Plaintiff and Defendant were involved in an automobile accident. In 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant alleging that Defendant’s negligent motor vehicle operation caused the collision, resulting in serious injury to Plaintiff. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Plaintiff’s action was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed and granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the district court’s consideration of evidence outside the pleadings converted Defendant’s motion to a summary judgment motion and that genuine issues of material fact precluded dismissal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s motion was converted to a summary judgment motion, but no issues of material fact precluded entry of the court’s order, and (2) the court properly denied Plaintiff’s assertion of equitable estoppel and correctly ruled that Plaintiff’s action was barred by the statute of limitations. View "Inman v. Boykin" on Justia Law