Mills v. Reynolds
Decision Date | 11 March 1991 |
Docket Number | 89-195,Nos. 89-193,s. 89-193 |
Citation | 807 P.2d 383 |
Parties | Timothy L. MILLS, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Guy REYNOLDS and Sid Marks, Appellees (Defendants). Levi Harry BUNKER, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Jim NIGGEMYER, Appellee (Defendant). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Gary L. Shockey and Phillip White, Spence, Moriarity & Schuster, Jackson, for appellants.
William S. Bon, Schwartz, Bon, McCrary & Walker, Casper, for appellees Reynolds and Marks.
Patrick J. Murphy, Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, and John T. Pappas, Western Law Associates, P.C., Lander, for appellee Niggemyer.
Rodger McDaniel, McDaniel & Tiedeken Law Offices, Cheyenne, for amicus curiae, Wyoming AFL-CIO.
Robert W. Tiedeken, McDaniel & Tiedeken Law Offices, and George Santini, Graves, Santini & Villemez, P.C., Cheyenne, for amicus curiae, Wyoming Trial Lawyers Ass'n.
Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Ron Arnold, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Larry M. Donovan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for amicus curiae, State of Wyo.
Patrick R. Day, Holland & Hart, Cheyenne, for amici curiae Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Ass'n, Wyoming Mining Ass'n, Wyoming Trucking Ass'n, Inc., and Associated Gen. Contractors of Wyoming, Inc.
Before URBIGKIT, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, * MACY, and GOLDEN, JJ.
The primary question that must be resolved in this case is whether Wyo. Const. art. 10, § 4 forecloses the legislature from extending the immunity of employers to co-employees acting within the scope of their employment. Stated another way, is the legislature foreclosed by the constitution from eliminating a cause of action that had been earlier recognized in the law? In addition to challenging the authority to eliminate a cause of action, the primary issue also presents a question of interpretation of Wyo. Const. art. 10, § 4. Additional issues are presented by the alternative argument of the respective appellants that the accused statute, § 27-14-104(a), W.S.1977 (Cum.Supp.1989) 1, is contrary to Wyo Const. art. 1, §§ 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 34, as well as Wyo. Const. art. 3, § 27. These additional claims of unconstitutionality strike more directly at the authority of the legislature to eliminate a cause of action. The district court, in granting summary judgments in favor of the respective defendants, ruled that § 27-14-104(a), W.S.1977 (Cum.Supp.1989), is constitutional, contrary to all of the contentions of the appellants. We agree that the statute is constitutional and affirm the judgment of the district court.
Timothy L. Mills (Mills) and Levi Harry Bunker (Bunker) filed separate briefs that state the issues identically:
Guy Reynolds (Reynolds) and Sid Marks (Marks) state the only issue that they perceive in this way:
"The sole issue for review is whether in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the District Court correctly held that the part of § 27-14-104(a), W.S.1977, prohibiting lawsuits between co-employees while acting in the course and scope of their employment was not unconstitutional."
Jim Niggemyer (Niggemyer), responding to the arguments of Bunker, presents this statement of the issue:
"Is the Wyoming Legislature's elimination of co-employee liability constitutional?"
In addition to the briefs of the parties, the court was favored with briefs of amicus curiae from several interested groups, all filed with the permission of the court. In the Amicus Curiae Brief of the Wyoming AFL-CIO, the issues in the appeal are articulated in this way:
The Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association says that the issue is:
"Does absolute co-employee immunity under Section 27-14-104(a), W.S.1977 (1987 Cum.Supp.), violate Article 10, Section 4, of the Wyoming Constitution?"
In the Amicus Curiae Brief of the State of Wyoming, there is no statement of an issue, but the statement of the argument suffices in lieu of an issue statement. It is:
"Section 27-14-104(a), W.S.1986, does not afford complete, absolute co-employee immunity but rather limits the available remedies to injured co-workers."
Lastly, in the Amicus Curiae Brief of the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association, the Wyoming Mining Association, the Wyoming Trucking Association, Inc., and the Associated General Contractors of Wyoming, Inc., the statement of the issue is:
"May the Legislature constitutionally grant coemployees immunity from suit, when acting within the scope of their employment, under Wyoming's Worker's Compensation Act?"
These cases present a pure question of the constitutionality of the statute. Consequently, the operative facts may be very briefly stated. Mills was employed by Dunbar Well Service, Inc. and, early in March of 1988, Reynolds directed Mills to paint the hood of a truck using equipment and materials provided by Marks. Both Reynolds and Marks were co-employees of Mills. While Mills was engaged in the assigned task, and was following instructions given him by Reynolds, an underrated pressure regulator burst near his face. Mills received severe injuries that included the loss of his left eye. He was awarded worker's compensation benefits with respect to his injuries.
In the companion case, Bunker was employed by Universal Equipment Co. and received instructions from Niggemyer, a supervisory co-employee, to remove some electrical equipment from the old concentrator area of the Atlantic City mine site. Niggemyer informed Bunker that the electricity had been shut off, but the electricity had not been shut off. When Bunker attempted to remove the equipment, as directed, he received severe electrical burns over 47% of his body and also suffered a broken hip...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mills v. Reynolds
...of § 27-14-104(a) and affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgments in favor of Appellees. Mills v. Reynolds, 807 P.2d 383 (Wyo.1991). Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas stated that the constitutionality of § 27-14-104(a) could be sustained by extending the rationa......
-
Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd.
...intentional torts constitutes a separate world of legal culpability.' " Leibman, supra at 693 n. 86 (quoting Mills v. Reynolds, 807 P.2d 383 (Wyo.1991) (Urbrigkit, J., dissenting)). That view of tort law consisting of compartmentalized concepts of legal culpability, however, has never been ......
-
Reiter v. State
...422 U.S. 563, 574, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975)). [¶ 20] Due process is both procedural and substantive. Mills v. Reynolds, 807 P.2d 383, 395 (Wyo.1991). The substantive component of due process "`bars certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions "regardless of the fairness of the......
-
BP America Production Co. v. Dept. of Rev.
...v. State, 2001 WY 116, ¶ 19, 36 P.3d 586, ¶ 19 (Wyo.2001). Due process is both procedural and substantive. Id. (citing Mills v. Reynolds, 807 P.2d 383, 395 (Wyo.1991)). Procedural due process is satisfied "if a person is afforded adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningfu......
-
CHAPTER 14 THE FIRST AND LAST DEFENSES IN PRIVATE ROYALTY LITIGATION: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES
...Dame v. Mileski, 340 P.2d 205, 208 (Wyo. 1959) (an overriding royalty interest is an interest in real property). [84] Mills v. Reynolds, 807 P.2d 383, 395 (Wyo. 1991). [85] White v. State, 784 P.2d 1313, 1315 (Wyo. 1989) (upholding a statute creating immunity from suits related to the desig......