Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

At the heart of these three consolidated appeals was Sky Harbor’s alleged failure to pay rent to the Cheyenne Regional Airport and to leave the Airport premises. Sky Harbor argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide any of the cases now on appeal. The district court generally ruled in favor of the Airport in all three cases. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district and circuit courts did not lack subject matter jurisdiction in the three combined appeals; and (2) the judgments were entered in accordance with the law. View "Sky Harbor Air Serv., Inc. v. Cheyenne Reg’l Airport Bd." on Justia Law

Leon and Brenda Rogers purchased a home from Jeffrey Wright. The Rogers subsequently discovered several defects in the home and sued Wright, JWright Development, LLC, and JWright Companies, Inc. (collectively, the JWright defendants), alleging breach of contract, negligence, breach of warranty, and negligent and intentional misrepresentation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the JWright defendants. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order on the negligence claim but otherwise affirmed, holding (1) issues of material fact existed regarding whether the builder of the Rogers’ home breached its legal duty to build the home in a reasonable and workmanlike manner; and (2) the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the JWright defendants on the remainder of the Rogers’ claims. View "Rogers v. Wright" on Justia Law

Merit Energy Company, LLC hired an independent contractor, Basic Energy Services, Inc. to clean out its oil and gas wells. Basic employee Blake Horr was injured while performing the job. Horr brought suit against Merit, alleging several exceptions to the general rule that the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another by an act or omission of the contractor or his workers. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment against Merit, concluding that Merit was substantially at fault and that its fault had caused Horr more than two million dollars in damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in instructing the jury to determine if Merit retained control over any part of the work that caused injury to Horr; (2) did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give the jury Merit’s proposed instruction detailing Basic’s duty of care to Horr; and (3) did not err in denying Merit’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. View "Merit Energy Co., LLC v. Horr" 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

Appellant, acting as the personal representative for her deceased mother’s estate, sued Star Valley Medical and Care Centers and several of their employees (collectively, Appellees), alleging that Appellees’ negligence caused her mother’s death. Before filing her complaint, Appellant submitted a governmental claim as required by the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA). Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that Appellant’s claim was defective because it was not signed under oath or penalty of perjury as required by the current WGCA and the Wyoming Constitutions. The district court found that, for these reasons, the claim was invalid and granted summary judgment to Appellees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the claim requirements set forth in the WGCA and Wyoming Constitution are nonjurisdictional substantive requirements that can be waived; and (2) although the claim in this case did not meet statutory and constitutional requirements, Appellees failed to adequately raise the claim’s deficiencies as an affirmative defense and therefore waived that defense. View "Harmon v. Star Valley Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as personal representative for Connie Scribner, filed a wrongful death complaint against Defendants, Dr. Sean Beyer and Emergency Medical Physicians, P.C., alleging that Defendants’ care of Scribner fell below the standard of care. The first trial ended in a mistrial, and a second trial was held. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff appealed and Defendants cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial or in admitting the testimony of Dr. Beyer and Defendants’ emergency medicine expert concerning certain medical tests and a pneumonia severity index. View "Miller v. Beyer" on Justia Law

Gary Carl Stroth became very sick on September 23, 2010 and died a few days later. On October 11, 2012, Appellant submitted a notice of claim against the Star Valley Medical Center (Hospital), the Town of Thayne and the Thayne Ambulance Service, alleging the Hospital and Ambulance Service were negligent in their care of Stroth and that the Town was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Appellant’s claim had not been timely filed under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant presented her notice of claim more than two years after the accrual of her claim, the district court correctly dismissed her complaint for failure to submit a timely notice of claim under the WGCA. View "Stroth v. N. Lincoln County Hosp. Dist." on Justia Law

In February 2011, two years and four months after Plaintiff learned she had been disinherited by her mother, Plaintiff filed a complaint against financial advisor Bradley Lott for fraud and constructive fraud. A jury found that Lott had committed constructive fraud but that Plaintiff knew or should have known before February 2007 that the fraud occurred. Based on the jury’s findings, the district court dismissed the action, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding (1) the evidence did not support a finding that Plaintiff could have discovered the fraud sooner, and (2) therefore, the district court erred by dismissing the case based on the statute of limitations. Remanded for a new trial. View "Erdelyi v. Lott" on Justia Law

Robert Carson and his passenger, Hugh Sharp, were involved in a car accident in which Carson sustained multiple injuries and Sharp was killed. Carson filed a claim for worker’s compensation benefits. The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division denied benefits, finding that Carson’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment with Metrocities Mortgage, LLC. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of Carson’s claim. Meanwhile, Sharp’s widow filed a wrongful death action against Carson and Metrocities. After a trial, a federal jury entered judgment against Metrocities under the theory of respondeat superior, concluding that Carson was acting within the course of scope of his employment when the accident occurred. On the basis of the federal judgment, Carson submitted a motion to reopen his claim with the OAH, contending that there was newly discovered evidence he was acting within the course of his employment at the time of the accident. The OAH eventually affirmed its earlier decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH did not err when it failed to apply collateral estoppel to the issue of whether Carson was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his injury. View "Carson v. State ex rel., Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

In 2011, Decedent died of injuries incurred in an automobile accident. Decedent was survived by his allegedly estranged wife, Laura Soran, and by his parents and sister. Decedent’s father, in his capacity as personal representative, brought a wrongful death claim brought against Robert Curran, the driver of the vehicle in which Decedent was a passenger when he died, and settled with Curran’s insurance providers for $400,000. A dispute subsequently arose between Decedent’s beneficiaries as to how the settlement proceeds should be distributed. The district court awarded Laura seventy-five percent of the settlement proceeds and divided the remainder among Decedent’s parents and sister. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court’s distribution order was clearly erroneous in that it misapplied the burden of proof and improperly presumed damages in favor of Decedent’s wife where Decedent’s marital relationship was uncertain. Remanded. View "In re Wrongful Death of Daniel P. Soran" on Justia Law