Sinclair v. City of Gillette, 2012 WY 19

Sinclairs own property near Gillette; City contracted to install storm drain across their land and surveyors proceeded despite objections.
Storm drain: five feet high, fourteen feet wide, installed across the Sinclairs' property and later graded and filled.
Sinclairs filed three claims: injunctive relief to remove the drain, damages under Eminent Domain Act, and alternative damages including land value loss and fees.
City moved under Wyo. Gov. Claims Act to dismiss the third claim as barred by governmental immunity; district court dismissed it.
Court held immunity barred the third claim because it did not fall within the Act's operation-of-a-public-utility exception, and Eminent Domain Act provides exclusive remedy; Sinclairs retain injunctive and inverse-condemnation avenues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does GWCA bar damages against the City for this storm drain case?	Sinclair argues an exception applies under 1-89-108(a).	City contends no exception applies; immunity bars the claim.	Yes, GWCA bars the claim.
Does applying immunity to negligence in operation of public utilities violate constitutional rights?	Constitutional rights protections are violated by immunity.	Immunity is constitutional and previously upheld.	No constitutional violation; GWCA upheld.

Sawyer v. City of Sheridan, 798 P.2d 476 (Wyo. 1990) (operation of a public utility is narrowly construed; not the basis for liability here)
Cottier v. City of Torrington, 145 P.3d 1278 (Wyo. 2007) (operation of a public utility; keeps utility operable; definitions of operation)
Krenning v. Heart Mountain Irrigation Dist., 200 P.3d 774 (Wyo. 2009) (upholds GWCA against liberal interpretation)
State v. Watts, 177 P.3d 793 (Wyo. 2008) (statutory interpretation of GWCA immunity")
L.U. Sheep Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 790 P.2d 663 (Wyo. 1990) (eminent domain comprehensive remedy; exclusive)