Pavuk v. Rogers, 00-260.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
• Citation: 2001 WY 75,30 P.3d 19
• Docket Number: No. 00-260.,00-260.
• Parties: Kurt PAVUK and Cory Pavuk, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. Ila ROGERS and John Doe Rogers, Wife and Husband; Mary Ann Shaffer and John Doe Shaffer, Wife and Husband, Appellees (Defendants).
• Decision Date: 17 August 2001

30 P.3d 19
2001 WY 75

Kurt PAVUK and Cory Pavuk, Appellants (Plaintiffs),
v.
Ila ROGERS and John Doe Rogers, Wife and Husband; Mary Ann Shaffer and John Doe Shaffer, Wife and Husband, Appellees (Defendants)

No. 00-260.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

August 17, 2001.

James K. Lubing of James K. Lubing Law Office, Jackson, WY; and Robert L. Murray, Tucson, AZ, Representing Appellants.

David B. Hooper and Tom A. Glassberg of Hooper Law Offices, P.C., Riverton, WY, Representing Appellees.

Before LEHMAN, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE and VOIGT, JJ.

VOIGT, Justice.

[¶ 1] Kurt Pavuk (appellant), a social guest of the tenant, was injured when he fell down a stairway on premises leased from Ila Rogers and Mary Ann Shaffer (appellees). In the ensuing personal injury action, the district court granted summary judgment to appellees, citing common law landlord immunity. Appellant asks this Court to reject that common law immunity, thereby recognizing recent legislative intent to the contrary. Finding that summary judgment in favor of appellees was proper under the circumstances of this case, we affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] The only issue raised by appellant is whether this Court should abandon its adherence to the common law doctrine of landlord immunity for injuries to a tenant or third-party guest of the tenant.

FACTS

[¶ 3] In December, 1996, appellant suffered severe injuries, resulting in paraplegia, when he fell down the outside back stairs of a townhouse owned by appellees and rented to appellant's acquaintance. Appellant brought the instant civil action on January 18, 2000,

30 P.3d 20

alleging that appellees maintained the premises in a dangerous condition. The district court granted summary judgment to appellees, finding (1) there were no issues of material fact; (2) appellees had not retained control over the premises; (3) there were no latent defects; and (4) appellees were protected by common law landlord immunity from negligence claims brought by a social guest of their tenant

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 4] Summary judgment motions are determined under the following language from W.R.C.P. 56(c):

The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Since the parties have not suggested any disagreement as to the material facts in this case, we "have only to determine whether the district court properly granted summary judgment as a matter of law." Cooper v. Town of Pinedale, 1 P.3d 1197, 1200 (Wyo. 2000).

DISCUSSION

[¶ 5]...