405 P.3d 228
Wyo.2017Background
- Cindy Williams slipped and suffered a compound ankle fracture on a gravel strip abutting Plains Tire & Battery’s store after leaving the front door to retrieve a trailer; her husband asserted loss of consortium.
- Plaintiffs alleged Plains allowed an artificial gravel slope in an ingress/egress area to remain, creating a slippery, dangerous condition and violating building/egress code requirements.
- Plains moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs could not show where, how, or why Williams fell and therefore owed no duty or breach was established; it also moved to exclude portions of plaintiffs’ expert report.
- Plaintiffs relied on eyewitness testimony (brother and store manager), photos, an accident report indicating Tires were placed at the spot afterwards, and an expert (building inspector) opining the gravel was in an egress path and violated building/maintenance codes.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Plains, discounting the expert’s opinions as unsupported; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact existed as to duty and breach (including admissibility/weight of the expert, manager statements, and subsequent remedial measures) and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plains owed a duty to invitees regarding the gravel area | Gravel was an artificial, foreseeable hazard in an ingress/egress path; Plains owed ordinary care | No duty because plaintiffs cannot show she fell on an "unnatural accumulation" or that the gravel caused the fall | Court: Duty question for jury in most cases; here visible gravel in ingress/egress supports existence of duty and raises fact issues |
| Whether there was evidence of breach causing the fall | Eyewitness, manager report, photos, and expert show gravel created slippery transition and violated codes | Plaintiffs and eyewitnesses cannot recall precisely how/why she fell; insufficient evidence of breach | Court: Genuine dispute exists about whether Williams slipped on gravel and whether allowing it was unreasonable; summary judgment improper |
| Admissibility/weight of plaintiffs’ expert (Brunetti) | Expert based opinions on reviewed documents and photos, opining code violations and that gravel was in egress path | Expert lacked foundation because eyewitnesses purportedly couldn’t identify where/how she fell | Court: Key portions of expert report survive Rule 56 scrutiny to create factual disputes; admissibility/weight reserved for trial |
| Use of subsequent remedial measures (placement of tires) and manager statements | Tires placed after accident and manager’s statements show location was known hazardous and feasible to block; relevant for location, feasibility, ownership/control | Plains: Subsequent measures inadmissible under rule barring remedial measures; manager statements lack foundation/hearsay | Court: Such evidence may be admissible for purposes other than proving negligence (e.g., location, feasibility); manager statements likely admissible as agent admissions—questions for trial judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Gayhart v. Goody, 98 P.3d 164 (Wyo. 2004) (summary judgment standard and review)
- Amos v. Lincoln Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 359 P.3d 954 (Wyo. 2015) (premises owner owes invitees duty of reasonable care; breach is typically for the jury)
- Rhoades v. K-Mart Corp., 863 P.2d 626 (Wyo. 1993) (storeowner duty to keep premises safe; breach is jury question)
- Valance v. VI-Doug, Inc., 50 P.3d 697 (Wyo. 2002) (natural accumulation rule in snow/ice cases and burden-shifting discussion)
- Hendricks v. Hurley, 184 P.3d 680 (Wyo. 2008) (no duty absent evidence owner knew or should have known of hidden danger)
- Radosevich v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 776 P.2d 747 (Wyo. 1989) (distinguishing obvious or intended-use hazards where no duty to protect against every risk)
- Allmaras v. Mudge, 820 P.2d 533 (Wyo. 1991) (summary judgment proper when record fails to establish material fact)
- M & M Auto Outlet v. Hill Inv. Corp., 230 P.3d 1099 (Wyo. 2010) (affidavit requirements for summary judgment evidence)
- Pinnacle Bank v. Villa, 100 P.3d 1287 (Wyo. 2004) (open-and-obvious danger considered in comparative fault, not for duty determination)