Fugle v. Sublette Cnty. Sch. Dist. # 9

• Decision Date: 31 July 2015
• Docket Number: No. S–14–0305.,S–14–0305.
• Citation: 353 P.3d 732,2015 WY 98
• Parties: Jacob FUGLE, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. SUBLETTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT # 9 and Stephen Nelson, Appellees (Defendants).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

353 P.3d 732
2015 WY 98

Jacob FUGLE, Appellant (Plaintiff)
v.
SUBLETTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT # 9 and Stephen Nelson, Appellees (Defendants).

No. S–14–0305.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 31, 2015.

353 P.3d 733

Representing Appellant: Travis J. Bing and Elizabeth Greenwood, Greenwood Law, LLC, Pinedale, Wyoming; Frank R. Chapman, Chapman Valdez & Lansing Attorneys and Counselors at Law, Casper, Wyoming; Inga L. Parsons, Attorney at Law, Marblehead, Massachusetts. Argument by Ms. Parsons.

Representing Appellees: Tracy J. Copenhaver, Copenhaver, Kath, Kitchen & Kolpitcke, LLC, Powell, Wyoming.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, KITE, DAVIS, and FOX, JJ.

Opinion

BURKE, Chief Justice.

¶ 1] Appellant, Jacob Fugle, brought suit against Appellees, Sublette County School District # 9 and his teacher, Stephen Nelson, for injuries he sustained during a science demonstration conducted in the school gymnasium. Appellees sought summary judgment claiming immunity under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–39–101 et seq. ). The district court granted the motion, and Mr. Fugle challenges that decision in this appeal. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Mr. Fugle presents the following two issues:

1. Whether the alleged negligence of Appellees falls within the waiver of immunity from liability for negligent operation or maintenance of a building under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–39–106.

2. Whether the alleged negligence of Appellees falls within the waiver of immunity from liability for negligent operation or maintenance of a recreation area under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–39–106.

FACTS

[¶ 3] In November 2010, Mr. Fugle was a student at Big Piney High School in Big Piney, Wyoming. As part of a science class, his teacher, Stephen Nelson, conducted a demonstration of centripetal force in the high school gymnasium using a wheeled cart and a 20–foot rope. In the demonstration, Mr. Nelson stood in the center of the gym and held on to one end of the rope while a student, sitting in the cart, held on to the other end. The students took turns sitting in the cart and pushing on the cart to initiate motion. During Mr. Fugle's turn, he was unable to hang onto the rope due to the forces acting upon him, and when he let go of the rope, the cart travelled across the gym floor and into a door frame. Mr. Fugle experienced extensive injuries, including a dislocated hip and a fractured femur, as a result of the collision.

[¶ 4] Mr. Fugle filed suit against the School District and Mr. Nelson. Following discovery, Appellees moved for summary judgment under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The district court granted Appellees' motion after concluding that Mr. Fugle's injury did not fall within the exceptions to governmental immunity for negligence in the “operation and maintenance” of any building, or in the “operation and maintenance” of any recreation area. Mr. Fugle appealed.

[353 P.3d 734

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 5] We apply the following standard of review to a district court's summary judgment decision:

Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. W.R.C.P. 56(c) ; Metz Beverage Co. v. Wyoming Beverages, Inc., 2002 WY 21, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 1051, 1055 (Wyo.2002). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when a disputed fact, if it were proven, would establish or refute an essential element of a cause of action or a defense that the parties have asserted.” Id. Because summary judgment involves a purely legal determination, we undertake de novo review of a trial court's summary judgment decision. Glenn v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WY 16, ¶ 6, 176 P.3d 640, 642 (Wyo.2008).

Singer v. Lajaunie, 2014 WY 159, ¶ 19, 339 P.3d 277, 283 (Wyo.2014) (quoting Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. v. Thunder Basin Coal Co., LLC, 2008 WY 101, ¶ 8, 191 P.3d 125, 128–29 (Wyo.2008) ). We consider the record from a viewpoint most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, giving to him all favorable inferences that can be drawn reasonably from the facts set forth in the affidavits, depositions, and other material properly appearing in the record. Singer, ¶ 19, 339 P.3d at 283.

DISCUSSION

[¶ 6] The Wyoming Governmental Claims Act “provides broad governmental immunity from tort liability.” Sinclair v. City of Gillette, 2012 WY 19, ¶ 10, 270 P.3d 644, 646 (Wyo.2012) (quoting Krenning v. Heart Mt. Irrigation Dist., 2009 WY 11, ¶ 21, 200 P.3d 774, 781 (Wyo.2009) ). Certain enumerated activities, however, are excepted from the general immunity rule. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1–39–105 through –112 (LexisNexis 2015). Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–39–106, “A governmental entity is liable for damages resulting from bodily injury, wrongful death or property damage caused by the negligence of public employees while acting within the scope of their duties in the operation or maintenance of any building, recreation area or public park.”

¶ 7] Mr. Fugle contends that the School District's negligence resulted from the “operation or maintenance” of a building under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–39–106. He also claims that the School District's negligence resulted from the “operation or maintenance” of a recreation area under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–39–106. He contends that under the statute, immunity has been waived for activities that are negligently conducted or supervised in the building or recreation area. Appellees concede that the School District is a governmental entity and that Mr. Nelson was a public employee acting within the scope of his duties. For purposes of the summary judgment motion, Appellees also concede that the science experiment was negligently conducted and Mr. Fugle was injured as a result of that negligence. They assert, however, that under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–39–106, immunity from liability is waived only for activities related to the “operation or maintenance” of the facilities comprising the building or recreation area. They contend that Mr. Fugle's claims of negligence do not relate to any defect in the “operation or maintenance” of the gymnasium and, accordingly, do not fall within the waiver of governmental immunity under the statute.

[¶ 8] In order to resolve this case, we must interpret Section 106 of the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. In interpreting the WGCA, we apply the following rules of statutory interpretation:

When we interpret statutes, our goal is to give effect to the intent of the legislature, and we “attempt to determine the legislature's intent based primarily on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute.” Krenning v. Heart Mountain Irrigation Dist., 2009 WY 11, ¶ 9, 200 P.3d 774, 778 (Wyo.2009). Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, so our review of the district court's conclusions is de novo . Id.; Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Wyo. Dep't of Revenue, 2010 WY 122, ¶ 7, 238 P.3d 568, 570 (Wyo.2010).

With specific regard to the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, we have said that we should not “enlarge, stretch, expand[,]

[353 P.3d 735

or extend” the statutory language to include “matters not falling within its express provisions.” State v. Watts, 2008 WY 19, ¶ 19, 177 P.3d 793, 798 (Wyo.2008). Instead, we use our “standard rules” of statutory interpretation “to determine whether the legislature intended that immunity be waived for a particular claim and will not resort to reliance upon previous unsupported and unnecessary suggestions that the act is to be interpreted either liberally or strictly.” Id., ¶ 20, 177 P.3d at 798–99.

Stroth v. North Lincoln County Hosp. Dist., 2014 WY 81, ¶ 7, 327 P.3d 121, 125 (Wyo.2014) (quoting Sinclair, ¶¶ 8–9, 270 P.3d at 646 ).

Operation or Maintenance of a Building

¶ 9] We will address, first, Mr. Fugle's claim that Appellees' negligence falls within the exception to immunity from liability for the operation or maintenance of a “building” under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–39–106. We have previously determined that this exception is limited to the State's negligence in making a building functional and, accordingly, applies only to unsafe conditions due to physical defects in the building itself. In State Dep't of Corr. v. Watts, 2008 WY 19, 177 P.3d 793 (Wyo.2008), the plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit against the State after his wife, a nurse employed at the Wyoming Honor Farm, was killed by an inmate at the Honor Farm. He claimed, inter alia, that the Honor Farm had been negligent in failing to install security cameras in the area in which his wife was killed. Id., ¶ 40, 177 P.3d at 803. The State moved for summary judgment, claiming that it was immune from suit under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–39–106. The district court denied the motion, and the State appealed.

[¶ 10] On appeal, the plaintiff contended that “operation or maintenance” of a building should be read broadly to encompass the operation of the physical building as well as the operation of the penal institution within the building. Id., ¶ 22, 177 P.3d at 799. This Court disagreed. We noted, initially, that “operation” had been defined as the “state of being operative or functional” or “the...