84 F. Supp. 3d 1277
D. Wyo.2015Background
- Makayla Strahle, a Fremont County School District (FCSD) student, was struck and killed while crossing Highway 86 after being signaled by the activity bus driver, Fred Peterson, to cross from a bus stopped on the opposite side of the road.
- Plaintiffs sued FCSD, school officials and Peterson for negligence and wrongful death, asserting many theories but focusing at trial on (1) negligent operation of the bus/driver and (2) negligent routing/stop placement.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA) immunity applies to several tort theories (routing, hiring, training, supervision, entrustment, etc.), and alternatively that there is no genuine issue of negligence by Peterson.
- The parties agreed the motor-vehicle-lighting claim was abandoned; they disputed whether WGCA exceptions (motor vehicle, public utility, insurance) waive immunity for particular claims.
- The court concluded WGCA immunity was waived for (a) claims arising from Peterson’s in-seat acts directing Strahle to cross (operation) and (b) negligent design/routing/stop-placement to the extent covered by the district’s auto insurance; but immunity remained for claims against supervisors for hiring, training, supervision, and entrustment.
- On negligence merits, the court denied summary judgment for Defendants as to the remaining operational/negligence claims (breach and causation are fact issues for the jury).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether actions like route design, hiring, training, supervision, and entrustment constitute "operation" under the WGCA motor-vehicle exception | Such planning and routing are part of operating school buses and thus fall within the motor-vehicle exception | "Operation" requires actual physical control of the vehicle; supervisors who do not physically control the vehicle remain immune | Route design, hiring, training, supervision, entrustment = not "operation"; immunity for those claims preserved under motor-vehicle exception (Harbel controlling) |
| Whether driver Peterson's in-seat acts (lights, door, motioning student to cross) fall within motor-vehicle exception | These acts are part of bus operation and waive immunity | Defendants conceded some application but sought to limit scope | Peterson's on-site, in-seat instructions constituted operation; immunity waived for claim of improper instruction |
| Whether FCSD is a "public utility" such that WGCA public-utility exception waives immunity for routing/hiring/training claims | School transportation is ground transportation and public-function, thus fits §1-39-108 waiver | Public-utility exception applies only to entities that are public utilities as traditionally defined; school buses are not devoted to public use | Public-utility exception does not apply; FCSD not a public utility; immunity not waived on that basis |
| Whether FCSD's automobile insurance extends coverage to negligent route/stop design (insurance exception) | Route and stop design are inextricably tied to the use of the bus and thus fall within insurance coverage, waiving immunity to policy limits | Route/stop design are not "use, ownership or maintenance" of a vehicle and thus not covered (Worthington) | Designing routes and stops is part of the "use" of the covered auto; Barnes' intervening vehicle was foreseeable; insurance exception applies to route/stop design claims and waives immunity to the extent of policy coverage |
| Whether Peterson's conduct (operation, lookout, compliance with laws) entitles Defendants to summary judgment on negligence | Peterson acted reasonably and complied with applicable rules; no breach | Plaintiffs identify factual disputes about procedures, lookout, CDL manual compliance, and known hazards | Summary judgment denied on negligence claims — breach and causation are jury questions; genuine issues of material fact exist |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbel v. Wintemute, 883 P.2d 359 (Wyo. 1994) ("operation" requires actual physical control; supervisors not in control are generally immune)
- Chee Owens v. Leavitts Freight Serv., Inc., 745 P.2d 1165 (N.M. 1987) (planning/routing by officials not "operation" of bus for tort-immunity exception)
- Gallegos v. Sch. Dist. of W. Las Vegas, 858 P.2d 867 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993) (distinguishes driver decisions made while in control of the bus as operation)
- Gibson v. State Through Dep't of Revenue & Taxation, 811 P.2d 726 (Wyo. 1991) (§1-39-108 public-utility exception applies only to public utilities)
- Worthington v. State, 598 P.2d 796 (Wyo. 1979) (application of the "natural and reasonable incident" test for determining whether injury "arose out of" vehicle use)
- Lawrence v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 133 P.3d 976 (Wyo. 2006) (acts outside vehicle operation can be covered if inextricably related to operation)