Creel v. L & L, Inc.
2012 WY 124
| Wyo. | 2012Background
- Creels attended 2006 Wyoming Open as spectators; Mr. Creel was head-injured by an errant golf ball.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants other than the golfer, ruling WRSA barred Creels’ claims against L&L.
- L&L (operators) and its owners Lepore supervised the course; Kathy Irvine was a volunteer starter; Brett Veesart was the hitting golfer.
- Creels amended claims to add Irvine and L&L; later added Lepores individually; district court granted summary judgment to Irvine and L&L, denied to Veesart.
- WRSA defines inherent risks and provides immunity to providers for inherent risks; issue is whether conduct increased risk beyond inherent risks.
- The Supreme Court reverses the summary judgment, holding genuine issues of material fact exist about whether Irvine’s instructions increased risk beyond the sport’s inherent risk and whether L&L’s conduct created such risk, requiring trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does WRSA immunize a provider when it fails to provide a safe environment? | Creels argue no safe-area duty; facts show risk increased by provider. | L&L contends inherent risk precludes duty to eliminate risk; no safety duty. | No; issue reserved for jury to decide if provider increased inherent risk. |
| Does WRSA shield when a provider's negligence increases spectator risk? | Creels contend Irvine’s instruction increased risk to spectators. | Irvine and L&L argue no duty to eliminate inherent risks; any duty limited. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; jury must determine if risk was increased. |
| Did Irvine have authority to influence Veesart’s shot, increasing risk? | Evidence suggests Irvine could direct play and influence timing. | Record shows final decision rests with golfer; authority disputed. | Question for the jury to resolve. |
| Were spectators visible to players from the tee box, affecting duty? | Creels allege visibility to Veesart and others; witness testimony supportive. | Some witnesses testified visibility was obstructed; evidence conflicting. | Material fact exists; jury must decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooperman v. David, 214 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2000) (inherent risks require specificity; duty not to increase risk varies with facts)
- Dunbar v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp., 392 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2004) (inherent risk determined by highly specific context; genuine issues for jury)
- Sapone v. Grand Targhee, Inc., 308 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2002) (definition of inherent risk in recreational activity)
- Madsen v. Wyoming River Trips, Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (D. Wyo. 1999) (limits of inherent risk analysis; nature of risk tied to activity)
- Halpern v. Wheeldon, 890 P.2d 562 (Wyo. 1995) (statutory interpretation guiding WRSA scope)
- Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp. v. Rohrman, 150 P.3d 167 (Wyo. 2006) (summary judgment standard for inherent risk cases; factors for jury)
- Beckwith v. Weber, 277 P.3d 713 (Wyo. 2012) (whether inherent risk question is one for jury or law)