253 P.3d 505
Wyo.2011Background
- Van Patten, an entry-level floorman for H&P, was injured May 5, 2007 on rig 287 in Sublette County.
- Co-employees Gipson (driller), Sharisky (assistant driller), and Wixom (derrickman) were supervising/assisting the operation.
- The crew used a manrider to lift Van Patten under the derrickboard to free a storm gate and Tugger line.
- No job safety analysis or pre-job checklist was filled for the modified operation.
- H&P docked Gipson's pay after an investigation; other employees faced no discipline.
- District court granted summary judgment to the co-employees, concluding their acts were not willful and wanton; Van Patten appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether undisputed facts show co‑employees’ acts were willful and wanton | Van Patten argues genuine issues exist | Gipson/Sharisky/Wixom contend no willful/wanton conduct | No genuine issues; affirmed summary judgment |
| Whether policy violations show willful and wanton misconduct | Van Patten relies on missing safety analyses and policy breaches | Co‑employees argue routine practice and lack of knowledge of danger | Policy violations do not create genuine issue of willful misconduct |
| Whether the co‑employees' individual acts could be aggregated to prove willful misconduct | Van Patten contends individual acts show disregard | Co‑employees argue lack of intentional harm and lack of knowledge | Cannot aggregate to establish willful misconduct; still no willful showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Bertagnolli v. Louderback, 67 P.3d 627 (Wy. 2003) (knowledge and intentional disregard may show willful misconduct under W releasse)
- Hannifan v. American Nat'l Bank of Cheyenne, 185 P.3d 679 (Wy. 2008) (upholds willful and wanton finding where danger was known and disregarded)
- Loredo v. Solvay America, Inc., 212 P.3d 614 (Wy. 2009) (district court proper where supervisor ignored safety concerns)
- Formisano v. Gaston, 246 P.3d 286 (Wy. 2011) (no willful conduct where driver tired but not intentional harm)
- M & M Auto Outlet v. Hill Inv. Corp., 230 P.3d 1099 (Wy. 2010) (summary judgment standard; de novo review of record)