Dye by Dye v. Fremont County School Dist. No. 24, 90-135

Citation820 P.2d 982
Decision Date19 November 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-135,90-135
Parties71 Ed. Law Rep. 570 Suzanne DYE, by her next friend, Twilli J. DYE, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 24, Appellee (Defendant).
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

William L. Miller of Miller and Fasse, Riverton, for appellant.

Jay Dee Schaefer of Schaefer & Associates, Laramie, for appellee.

Before URBIGKIT, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ.

CARDINE, Justice.

Suzanne Dye appeals the W.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and (6) dismissal of her personal injury suit against Fremont County School District No. 24. Dismissal resulted from her mother's failure to file a timely notice of claim with the school district as required under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act.

We reverse and remand.

Dye frames the issues as:

"1. If a school district has purchased liability insurance, has the district waived any claims of sovereign immunity pursuant to § 21-3-129, W.S.1977, as amended, to the extent of its liability insurance and does the claims procedure and statute of limitations of the Governmental Claims Act apply?

"2. Is the notice requirement and statute of limitations of the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act as applied to minors unconstitutional as violation of due process and equal protection of the law?"

For purposes of review of this dismissal, we accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true. Gates v. Richardson, 719 P.2d 193, 194 (Wyo.1986). Appellant states in her complaint that she injured her knees while running a two-mile race as a member of the Shoshoni High School track team on April 24, 1986. Shoshoni High School is part of Fremont County School District No. 24. Before the injury, Dye was aware of problems with her knees, and her mother expressed concern to the school's track coach about Dye participating in track. Dye's mother expressly told the coach that Dye should not run in the two-mile race. Contrary to the mother's wishes, the coach ran Dye in that race, and she was injured. As a result of the injury, Dye underwent surgery on both knees and sustained medical expenses of at least $26,000.

On January 25, 1989, Dye's mother filed a notice of claim with the school district. The school district denied the claim on January 31, 1989. This suit followed on April 24, 1989. Dye filed an amended complaint in August 1989, reciting that at the time of Dye's injury, the school district had a policy of liability insurance. Dye brought her suit pursuant to W.S. 21-3-129, which states in part:

"(a) The board of trustees of each school district within the state may procure a policy or policies of comprehensive liability insurance which would save the school district harmless from financial loss arising out of any claim, demand, suit, or judgment for personal injury or death occasioned by the alleged tort of any officer, employee, or agent of the school district. The policy or policies shall specify a maximum amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) or more payable for injury to any one (1) person and a maximum amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) or more payable for any one (1) accident regardless of the number of persons injured.

"(b) The defense of governmental immunity is expressly waived to the extent of any insurance coverage of the district involving any such alleged tort. All defenses which would be available to a private corporation in an action against such corporation for the torts of its officers, employees, or agents shall be available to a school district in any action against it arising under this section."

The school district filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to W.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) in lieu of answering Dye's amended complaint. The district argued that the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act contained the exclusive remedy for Dye's cause of action. The district contended that Dye's failure to file a notice of claim with the school district within a two-year period from the date of her injury pursuant to W.S. 1-39-113 (June 1988 Repl.) barred this cause of action.

The trial court agreed with the school district. It found that Dye's failure to timely file her claim resulted in the court lacking jurisdiction. The suit was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on May 7, 1990.

Both the Governmental Claims Act and W.S. 21-3-129 deal with bringing suit against a school district. Statutes relating to the same subject should be read in pari materia to ascertain legislative intent. Paravecchio v. Memorial Hospital, 742 P.2d 1276, 1278 (Wyo.1987), cert. denied 485 U.S. 915, 108 S.Ct. 1088, 99 L.Ed.2d 249 (1988). The Wyoming Governmental Claims Act is the exclusive remedy against a school district or other governmental entity. W.S. 1-39-116; Dee v. Laramie County, 666 P.2d 957, 958 (Wyo.1983). Thus, while W.S. 21-3-129 allows an action against a school district to the extent of its liability insurance, such an action must be brought pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Governmental Claims Act. These procedures require filing of a proper notice of claim within the limitation period.

Having resolved the filing of claim issue in the school district's favor, we now turn to the application of the Governmental Claims Act as it relates to a minor. Wyoming Statute 1-39-113 stated:

"(a) No action shall be brought under this act against a governmental entity unless the claim upon which the action is based is presented to the entity as an itemized statement in writing within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission, except that a cause of action may be instituted not more than two (2) years after discovery of the alleged act, error or omission, if the claimant can establish that the alleged act, error or omission was:

"(i) Not reasonably discoverable within a two (2) year period; or

"(ii) The claimant failed to discover the alleged act, error or omission within the two (2) year period despite the exercise of due diligence."

We recently discussed this statute as it relates to minors in Alewine v. State Dept. of Health and Social Services, Div. of Public Assistance and Social Service, 803 P.2d 1372 (Wyo.1991). The issue confronting us here is one we left unanswered in that case.

In Alewine, a minor's father living in another state did not learn of the State's attempt to place the minor into adoption until long past the claim period. We affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the father's claims against the State for interference with child custody and intentional and negligent failure and refusal to reunify a family, the father not having disputed that his claim was barred due to the untimely notice of claim. Conversely, the minor raised the issue and was excused from the timely notice of claim provisions because the father did not have a reasonable opportunity to discover his child's injury within the proper time limit. 803 P.2d at 1376. However, we limited our holding to the facts of that case, which were "out of the 'ordinary.' " Id. at 1377. We declined to answer the question confronting us here because "[w]e d[id] not find it necessary * * * to break new ground in this instance." Id.

An unemancipated minor, by himself, has no procedural capacity to sue or be sued. See 43 C.J.S. Infants § 215 (1978). Wyoming Rules Civil Procedure 17(c) allows a "representative, such as a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other like fiduciary" to act on a minor's behalf. However,

"if * * * such representative fails to act, he may sue by his next friend or by guardian ad litem. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Doe by Fein v. District of Columbia
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 27 Agosto 1996
    ...to act, the notice-of-claims period does not begin to run until the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Dye v. Fremont County Sch. Dist. No. 24, 820 P.2d 982, 985-86 (Wyo.1991). With some highest state courts adopting an approach that is favorable to Doe's contentions, and others not, with ......
  • Beaulieu v. Florquist, 02-276.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 25 Marzo 2004
    ...(Wyo.1993); Awe v. University of Wyoming, 534 P.2d 97, 102 (Wyo.1975),overruled on other grounds by Dye by Dye v. Fremont County School Dist. No. 24, 820 P.2d 982, 986 (Wyo.1991). [¶ 11] Many of our prior cases have dealt with the necessity of alleging such filing and the date of filing und......
  • Weiner v. Wasson
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 21 Julio 1995
    ...specific or, in some cases, when a legal guardian is appointed by a court, limitations can commence to run. Dye v. Fremont County Sch. Dist. No. 24, 820 P.2d 982, 985-86 (Wy.1991) (parent's failure to give timely notice under tort claims statute did not bind minor; time for filing begins to......
  • Bell v. Schell
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 2 Diciembre 2004
    ...we held in Awe v. University of Wyoming, 534 P.2d 97, 105 (Wyo. 1975), overruled on other grounds by Dye by Dye v. Fremont County School Dist. No. 24, 820 P.2d 982 (Wyo. 1991), that the then-existing notice of claim statute was not a statute of limitations, but was a limitation upon the fil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT