413 P.3d 142
Wyo.2018Background
- Seven-year-old Sophia Archer was struck and killed in a marked crosswalk while returning from school.
- Driver Sandra Pennock held a WYDOT-issued driver's license despite monocular vision and a glass eye; WYDOT administered the eye exam that qualified her.
- Plaintiffs (Sophia's parents and siblings) sued WYDOT, the City of Riverton, Fremont County School District No. 25, and individual employees for wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of parental consortium; claims against the school district were dismissed and not appealed.
- The district court dismissed claims against WYDOT and the City on governmental immunity grounds under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA); plaintiffs appealed.
- Plaintiffs argued immunity was waived under the WGCA public utilities/services exception (Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-108) and under the insurance-coverage exception (Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-118(b)(i)); they also urged equitable grounds against strict immunity.
- The appellate court accepted complaint facts as true, reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, and affirmed dismissal, finding no applicable waiver of immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WYDOT's administration of driver's eye exams is a public service waiving immunity under Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-108 | WYDOT's eye exams are a public service (and sometimes available privately), so § 1-39-108 waives immunity | § 1-39-108 covers utilities/services of the same genre as listed (e.g., ground transportation as a transport service), not licensing/eye exams | Court held WYDOT's licensing/eye exams are not within § 1-39-108; immunity not waived |
| Whether the City’s provision of a marked street crossing is a public service waiving immunity under § 1-39-108 | Marked crosswalks/traffic control are public services akin to listed items, so immunity should be waived | Traffic control devices and marked crossings are not the same genre as listed utilities; prior precedent rejects waiver | Court held marked crossings are not within § 1-39-108; immunity not waived; claims also implicated statutory exclusions for design/maintenance under § 1-39-120(a) |
| Whether plaintiffs preserved an argument that immunity was waived by the governmental-entity insurance exception, Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-118(b)(i) | Plaintiffs argued they lacked discovery into insurance and should be allowed to pursue the insurance-coverage exception | Complaint contained no allegations of insurance; defendants are immune absent pleaded facts showing waiver | Court held plaintiffs failed to plead or allege insurance coverage; no preserved basis to invoke § 1-39-118(b)(i) |
| Whether equitable or unconscionable outcomes justify judicial expansion of WGCA waivers | Plaintiffs urged courts to avoid harsh results and expand waiver doctrines | Courts must apply WGCA as enacted and may not judicially enlarge waivers beyond statute | Court rejected equitable expansion and applied statutory interpretation rules; refused to enlarge WGCA waivers |
Key Cases Cited
- Oroz v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Carbon Cty., 575 P.2d 1155 (Wyo. 1978) (abolished municipal immunity and framed liability/immunity balance)
- Sponsel v. Park Cty., 126 P.3d 105 (Wyo. 2006) (ejusdem generis limits § 1-39-108 waiver; traffic control devices not covered)
- Rice v. Collins Commc'ns, Inc., 236 P.3d 1009 (Wyo. 2010) (refused to expand § 1-39-108 to services unlike listed utilities)
- Gibson v. State, Dep't of Revenue & Taxation, 811 P.2d 726 (Wyo. 1991) (ground transportation means transporting customers; licensing authorities not included)
- Fugle v. Sublette Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 9, 353 P.3d 732 (Wyo. 2015) (statutory interpretation rules for WGCA waivers)