Lucero ex rel. Lucero v. Holbrook
288 P.3d 1228
Wyo.2012Background
- Nanette Holbrook left a running car unattended in her private driveway for a brief period while retrieving her purse.
- Emms, a methamphetamine user, stole Holbrook's vehicle during that brief absence.
- A high-speed police pursuit ended when Emms's car collided with Lucero's vehicle, injuring Lucero and her two children.
- The district court granted summary judgment ruling Holbrook owed no duty and her act was not the proximate cause.
- The appellants contend there is either a statutory or common-law duty and that proximate causation was met.
- The Supreme Court affirms the district court’s summary judgment ruling based on lack of duty and lack of proximate causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty and proximate cause for leaving a running vehicle unattended. | Lucero argues a statutory/common-law duty exists. | Holbrook argues no duty and no proximate causation. | No duty; no proximate cause; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gates v. Richardson, 719 P.2d 193 (Wyo. 1986) (factors for duty-balancing in negligence)
- Shafer v. TNT Well Serv., Inc., 285 P.3d 958 (Wyo. 2012) (treats summary judgment standard and duty analysis)
- Lemos v. Madden, 200 P.791 (Wy. 1921) (proximate cause defined as substantial factor in injuries)
- Foote v. Simek, 139 P.3d 455 (Wyo. 2006) (proximate cause test: natural and probable consequence; foreseeability)
- Killian v. Caza Drilling, Inc., 131 P.3d 975 (Wy. 2006) (intervening causes and foreseeability in causation)