Dellapenta v. Dellapenta

DELLAPENTA, repre personal Louis Dellapenta, de of Nicholas

sentative

ceased, Della on behalf of Louis guardian guardian ad li

penta, as Dellapenta; be and on for Bianca

tem Dellapenta, Appellant of Louis

half

(Plaintiff), DELLAPENTA, Appellee

Donetta

(Defendant).

No. 91-8.

Supreme Wyoming. Court of

Aug. MACY, C.J., THOMAS,

Before CARDINE, URBIGKIT,* GOLDEN, JJ.

GOLDEN, Justice. appeal

In this we consider the issues of parent-child immunity negligence actions admissibility and the of evidence of seat Appellant belt nonuse. Louis appeals the trial court’s denial of his Mo- Judgment Notwithstanding tion for Judgment Trial Verdict New on the jury Verdict as the result of a decision wife, Donetta, finding his involving accident their chil- automobile Appellant personal injury dren. initiated wrongful death actions on behalf himself, daughter his deceased son and his who survived the accident. parental immunity

holdWe is abro- gated injuries resulting simple for operation of a motor ve- parents duty hicle and that have a to buck- passengers. le the seat belts their minor reverse and remand the trial court’s denial of admission of seat belt evidence Dellapen- sustained Nicholas sup- ta. We find substantial evidence to port jury verdict and affirm the trial motion, jury denials of court's a new trial theory ipsa loqui- instruction on the of res liability admission of evidence of tur and insurance.

ISSUES Appellant following raises the issues: appellant I. Is entitled to a new trial jury’s supported verdict is not by substantial evidence?

II. Did the district court commit a re- error of it refused to versible law when appellant allow to introduce evidence of appellee’s mi- failure to restrain her nor children with available seat belts? III. Did the district court commit a re- Jackson, appel- Jeffrey Tennyson, A. error of law when it refused to versible lant. theory ipsa instruct the on the of res loquitur? Jeffrey J. Robert W. Brown Gonda Sheridan, Lonabaugh Riggs, ap- Did the district court commit an & IV. refusing error of law to allow pellee. argument. at the time of oral * ChiefJustice begin query the We with this evidence of discussion of

appellant to introduce coverage? appellant’s seat belt issue appellee’s liability insurance and follow with remaining appeal. issues raised

FACTS Immunity Negli- I. Parent-Child Donetta Della-

On November gence Actions Jackson, Wyoming, penta traveled from on through Canyon River south the Snake presents ques a threshold This case children, minor Highway 89 her two parties by neither briefed tion was Dellapenta en- Bianca and Nicholas. Mrs. by nor appeal to this addressed trial patch of snow on curved countered May question is: a child sue court. That roadway lost control of and portion of injuries parent his or her for or death re slid off vehicle. The automobile sulting negligence operation of from road, and rolled several times side of the or a motor vehicle failure to buckle the of the rest on the bank Snake came to in a For the reasons that child seat belt? occupants were None wear- River. question in follow we must answer this ing ejected all were from the seat belts and first issue of affirmative. We discuss Dellapenta Mrs. and Bianca were vehicle. immunity tort action in terms of drowning and injured and Nicholas died of negligence and with our automobile follow hypothermia. analysis of issue. Nicholas, Appellant, father of Bianca and Dellapenta, daugh- Louis on behalf of his brought suit on his own behalf and himself, ter, sought deceased son and dam- representative and administrator personal personal ages injury for to Bianca and the Dellapenta and as of Nicholas estate through wrongful of Nicholas his death per- guardian ad litem of the guardian and negligence. A found wife’s acts Dellapenta. The estate of Bianca son and in the vehic- Dellapenta Mrs. damages for the estate of Nicholas claimed ular accident. illness, expenses. and last funeral burial brought by appellant against The action Bianca, through guardian, claimed her damages his injury as a result of wife for care, damages companionship, for loss of Bianca and the death of Nicholas comfort, society pecu- advice as well as and interspousal negligence. This action niary and emotional distress for loss interspousal previously abrogated court brother, her her Nicholas. For death of Tader, 787 P.2d immunity tort Tader past fu- Bianca claimed injuries, own (Wyo.1987). In that case a wife sued suffering, expenses, pain and ture medical negligence injuries for re- her husband life, scarring, enjoyment emotion- loss sulting an automobile accident. from disability disfigure- distress and al issue, immunity deliberations our Appellant Louis claimed ment. the discussion of numerous considered care, damages companionship, for loss abrogating interspousal cases comfort, society the death of advice and found: daughter; his injuries his son and of invoked age-old contentions death; his son’s pecuniary loss for disharmony conjectural insur- family resulting from the death distress emotional weigh greater with this ance fraud Bianca. of Nicholas present significant ma- court than with jurisdictions also jority of other DISCUSSION rejected. addressed out Appellant’s issues will be Tader, Appellant’s at 1068. action appeal. of this sequence for discussion and is squarely within Tader his wife falls a threshold added to these issues haveWe sustained. her May parent sue his or child question: parental immunity, pro- resulting negli- The doctrine injuries or death inju- hibiting personal children suits operation of a motor vehicle gence in the of their sustained as result in a ries or death child seat belt? buckle the failure to family actions, theory on the that the rela judicially cre- parent’s tortious Lee, tionship has been 1 J.D. Mississippi in dissolved. Supreme Court ated supra, 18.02. Parental acts of wanton 68 Miss. 9 So. George, Hewellette v. misconduct or those committed with willful family promote In order parent’s in the course of the business have guidance reinforcing continued harmony by subject to suit. Schlessinger also been “re- the child’s by parents and and control (Colo. Schlessinger, aid, comfort and obligation to ciprocal Trevarton, 1990); 151 Colo. Trevarton for false a suit obey,” prohibited the court (1963); against his by a minor child imprisonment Felderhoff v. (Tex.1971). Felderhoff, 473 S.W.2d Hewellette, 9 So. at 887. parent. resulting in vehicu- Parental support pa- arguments Additional greatest provided has area lar accidents developed since Hew- immunity have rental years. in recent for erosion of the doctrine family the effect on They include ellette. thirty states that of at least aware finances, particularly upon other children recognize by an action an unemanci- now parental family; interference with parent automo- pated minor possibility of fraud and discipline; and the Jilani, negligence. v. 767 bile Jilani exists. liability insurance collusion where 671, (Tex.1988).1 type 673 n. 1 This S.W.2d Lindahl, Barry A. Modem 1 Lee and J.D. specific grounds abroga- of tort elicits Liability Litigation Tort Law: Arguments rule. to maintain tion of the 1988). (Rev. 18.01 ed. § family immunity preservation for the partial has seen and total The doctrine specious child’s harmony become when the years. Marilyn Min- abrogation in recent 6 disrup- as the most injury itself is viewed al., Tort Actions 49.- Damages zer et in § 372, Pados, 444 Pa. 282 tive act. Falco v. (Second) (1989). The Restatement 34[1] Elam, (1971); A.2d Elam v. 275 S.C. 351 (1979) support lends Torts 895G § 132, 109, (1980). 111 Particular- 268 S.E.2d “A or child is changes in the rule: ly light widespread prevalence in liability tort to the other not immune from insurance, tranquility liability the domestic relationship.” This solely by reason of that argument rings hollow. v. Streenz paren- mere from insulation based on break Streenz, 86, 282, 283, 471 P.2d 41 106 Ariz. prompted abroga- total alone has tal status (1970). 891 The action is more A.L.R.3d cases and a shift of focus tion some likely family’s ease the financial difficul- care. v. parental duty of Stamboulis stemming injury from the child’s ties 762, Stamboulis, 401 Mass. 519 N.E.2d through the infusion of insurance funds (1988). 1299 Jilani, thereby repair family unit. courts, totally refusing Abrogation negli- Many while 767 S.W.2d at 674. doctrine, recogni- gence by out ex- is also reinforced abrogate the have carved cases immunity property children’s and contract to the rule. Suit tion that ceptions against parents often cause bitter upon the death of either child or actions brought 432, Briere, (1966); Hebel, (Alaska 1967); Foldi 107 N.H. 224 A.2d 588 435 P.2d 8 1. See Hebel v. 533, 11, (1983); Sandoval, Jeffries, v. 93 NJ. 461 A.2d 1145 128 Ariz. 623 P.2d 800 Sandoval v. 27, 914, Co., Gibson, P.2d (1981); Guess v. Ins. 96 N.M. 627 869 Cal.3d Gibson v. 3 Gulf 35, Coe, (1981); 648, (1971); Spencer, Cal.Rptr. Holodook v. 36 N.Y.2d 324 Schneider v. 92 288 Ard, 338, (1974); (Del.1979); v. 364 N.Y.S.2d 859 Nuelle Ard v. 414 So.2d N.E.2d A.2d 682 405 Reed, Wells, (N.D.1967); (Fla. 1982); Group N.W.2d 364 Kirchner v. Farmers Ins. v. 154 1066 326, 849, (1985); Crystal, Ohio St.3d 474 N.E.2d 275 712 P.2d 550 Turner v. 15 Idaho 109 Martin, (Iowa 1981); (1984); Through Turner, By Unah Unah v. Nockton- 304 N.W.2d 786 758, (Okla.1984); Nocktonick, Gilroy, Winn v. 296 227 Kan. 611 P.2d 135 676 P.2d 1366 ick v. Pados, 718, (1984); (Ky. (1980); Rigdon Rigdon, P.2d 776 Falco v. 444 S.W.2d 921 Or. 681 v. 465 Silva, 634, 372, (1971); Solmitz, 1970); A.2d Silva v. 446 A.2d 6 Pa. 282 351 Black v. 409 Elam, (R.I.1982); (Me.1979); Elam v. 275 S.C. v. Stam A.2d 1013 1054 Stamboulis A.L.R.4A 132, (1980); boulis, (1988); Wright Wright, v. 268 S.E.2d 109 Mass. 519 N.E.2d 1299 401 (1972); Merrick v. Sweeney, 262 N.W.2d 213 Va. 191 S.E.2d 223 Sweeney 402 Mich. (1980); Sutterlin, Stream, (1978); Wash.2d 891 295 N.W.2d 595 Anderson Comer, S.E.2d 721 1980); Royle, Lee v. W.Va. (Minn. Ins. Co. v. Transamerica (1976). (1983); Briere v. P.2d 820 Mont. im- parental that the doctrine of sub- We hold have never been family disputes but Streenz, munity abrogated an action for ordi- immunity. parental ject to operation a motor nary negligence 283; Falco, at 353. The 282 A.2d P.2d at so, doing apply logic vehicle. In negli- fraud and collusion possibility of However, present case. two Tader to the courts as seen some gence claims is distinguish this decision from Tad- factors chil- deny recovery to minor insufficient er, parental specifically, the influence of recovery is entire class when dren as an authority and discretion. Elam, 268 S.E.2d others. permitted all (Mauzy, Jilani, 111; at 767 S.W.2d courts, electing completely not to Some danger is Any potential J., concurring). doctrine, abrogate the have chosen instead justice power of the seen to be within to delineate areas where would out- and should not deal with system to invoked, “(1) The rule is be maintained. compensation weigh the benefit of negligent act relied on for a where the (Second) Torts Restatement child. recovery the reasonable exercise involves 895G, c. child, (2) comment parental authority over the alleged act involves addressed the issue This court first ordinary parental discretion exercise Ball, immunity in tort Ball provision for the care respect to the There, Wyo. 269 P.2d 302 Rigdon of the child.” v. and necessities simple negli- brought suit minor child (Ky.1971). Rigdon, 465 S.W.2d injuries re- against his father for gence 672; Jilani, also, at Fel 767 S.W.2d See pilot- plane his father was the ceived when 933; 473 S.W.2d at Goller derhoff, child, through moth- The his ing crashed. 402, 413, White, 122 N.W.2d 20 Wis.2d er, malicious con- allege willful or did not (1963). committed the or that the tort was duct the Restatement approach This follows This court father’s course of the business. 895G(2): (Second) of Torts dismissal of the trial court’s affirmed action, remarking immunity reluctance Repudiation general on its tort child’s liability maintainable for an act “encourage actions as be- does not establish that, parent-child parents unless because of children and their omission tween privileged relationship, law or where otherwise by the statute sanctioned of the not tortious. so clear an invasion they disclose tending bring dis- rights of the child as pa- that court reasoned The Felderhoff disorganize its family into the and cord and providing for the care rental duties Ball, Wyo. at government.” proper “seriously children could be necessities of 314. P.2d at parents if to be retarded were impaired and unemanci- by to lawsuits their held liable Bartshe, 480 P.2d 99 In Oldman v. er- children for unintentional pated minor child’s estate sued the a minor (Wyo.1971), occurring negligence while ordinary rors or alleging willful and wanton estate father’s parental duties discharge of such drunk result of the father’s disregard as a 933. Felderhoff, at responsibilities.” and Finding killed them both. driving which not intention- conduct was parent’s that question now becomes whether The to dis- granted a motion al, trial court deemed an driving be an automobile a claim. We re- to state for failure miss and authority or discretion parental act of possible that versed, holding “it is that immunity parental umbrel thus under the disregard of the wellbe- wanton willful considering this The court la. Jilani so child, resulting injury, could ing of a stated: same issue disorga- discord and rights that his invade im- duties obligations and The familial family unit.” result would nization quite differ- and nature are posed by law Oldman, obligation the law general ent from the an automo- every driver of imposes upon if the must decide Dellapenta we inNow * * * is limited to The of the bile. on behalf brought action negligence essentially paren- are transactions retained. should Dellapenta children action, negli buckle the children’s seat was a present the essence of belts In the tal. improper gent proximate of their alleged act and cause activity injuries. injuries These are known as sec of a motor vehicle—an operation In parental. Schnieder ond collisionor enhanced that could essentially Coe, 405 A.2d 682 ^[684] (Del.1979), possibly have been prevented by seat Corp., Delaware reasoned: use. Motors Supreme Court of Waterson General N.J. A.2d automobile, supervi- driving an “Unlike of one’s children involves issues sion on the use nonuse of Statistics control, authority, and discre- systems in belts or restraint motor vehicle very uniquely matters of a tion that well documented accidents have been type judgment. freedom personal Highway National Traffic recorded judgment has constitu- to exercise such Safety Administration of the United States sharp- underpinning and contrasts tional Wyo- Department Transportation, supervision regu- ly with state’s Unit, ming Analysis Accident by the Data one must judgment exercise lation Branch, Highway Safety Wyoming Trans- driving an automobile.” while compiled portation Department. The data Jilani, S.W.2d at 673. governmental agencies reflect the these usage by level of seat belt motor vehicle agree with the determination occupants inju- compared severity to the essentially is not vehicle operating motor ries sustained. hold that action parental activity and negligence by an unemanci- in automobile year acci- pated minor child will be dent, 11,715 Wyoming had a traffic total recognized in Wyoming. vehicles, involving motor- accidents motor pedestrians, cycles, bicycles resulting Belt Nonuse II. Evidence Seat of deaths, 3,068 in 111 fatal accidents and 129 approach issue of seat non- belt 8,536 injury only accidents which by considering two distinct sub-issues use damage property Wyoming’s occurred.2 analysis: role of immu- in our Comprehensive Report on Traffic Accidents failure children and the nity for to buckle 1987, Section, Management Data Accident admissibility of nonuse. seat belt Highway Department at 1. In Wyoming persons category, the fatal accident 119 Immunity A. Parental fatally injured were motor vehicle acci- equipment Dellapenta negli safety dents restraint jury found not A Mrs. available, persons motor not in use 86 operation of her vehicle was but gent died; therefore, persons in a and, causing the who 64 involved fatal not experi- Appellant a death occurred appeals the trial accident where accident. injuries incapacitating motion to enced of whom 49 denial of his admit evi court’s 38, using at 39. seat nonuse the children of were not restraints. Id. dence of category, per- In Dellapenta, injury no accident 915 but makes contention Mrs. receiving inju- proxi incapacitating sons reported seat belts was the that failure use using ries of 662 were not available cause of the accident itself. whom mate equipment. at 41. whether failure to restraint Id. Statistics question now becomes Injury signs Incapacitating 5. motor vehicle traffic ac of Fatal Accident—A 2. 1. —Visible harm, physical bleeding such as or distorted persons involving or more killed. cident one body, usually transported portions of the Injury motor vehicle traffic 2. Accident—A requiring accident scene medical atten- persons involving or more that one accident injury perform person with this tion. A cannot physically but not killed. harmed were normally accident at the scene. Only Property Damage Accident—A motor 3. signs Non-incapacitating injury 6. of —Visible involving property dam- traffic accident vehicle abrasions, bruises, physical such as swell- harm persons injured age no or $500 or more and ing limping. of or killed. Wyoming’s Comprehensive Report on Traffic injury Injury 1987, results Management 4. Fatal Accident Data Sec- Accidents tion, —An Highway Department Wyoming death. at 182. It court’s ejection occupant prerogative com- is within this on vehicle judicial reports of the take notice of the official injury severity show that pared to Sch. Dist. Washakie Co. fatally agencies. state persons injured, 119 68 were either Herschler, 310, No. One v. 4,034 606 totally P.2d 322 n. partially ejected; receiv- denied, 16, 824, 86, cert. 3,712 eject- 101 ing injuries, 449 U.S. S.Ct. non-fatal were Id. Sweetwater Co. (Wyo.1980); 66 L.Ed.2d 28 45. ed. at Org. Plan. v. Hin Com. Sch. Dists. year same National statistics kle, 1234, P.2d 1237 (Wyo.1971). 491 In 63,726 involved in persons were show that light of available national and state statis country; motor accidents across vehicle tics, both automobile collisions and second 17,821 system, passenger restraint used Insurance Co. collisions are foreseeable. 10,106 restraint, 35,799 and for use used Pasakarnis, Am. North So.2d could not be determined. Of of restraints (Fla.1984); Ford 447, Motor Co. v. accident, at the time of the those restrained Evancho, 327 So.2d 201, (Fla.1976); Lowe 4,500 fatally injured compared with were Ltd., 439, Estate Motors Mich. 17,189 belts; sitting died seat who their 706, N.W.2d Definite sub 3,220 injuries incapacitating received to support stantial evidence exists the ef 8,511 though wearing seat re- belts and preventing fectiveness of seat belts type ceived the same while not reducing injuries. Wyoming’s death and Report- wearing seat belts. Fatal Accident Comprehensive Report on Traffic Accidents ing System Highway Traffic National A supra; Progress, Decade Trans- Administration, Safety Department U.S. Spier supra. portation Fatalities 17,821 peo- Transportation, ch. Of Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 363 N.Y.S.2d systems, ple to have used restraint known N.E.2d 80 A.L.R.3d 1025 ejected only totally partially were (1974), the court stated that studies Id. at 26. from the vehicle. great reduction in the belt use showed Wyo- The statistics available ejection frequently “likelihood of [use] ming injury among less evidence death prevents ‘the second collision’ occu- using occupants safety devices.3 vehicle pant the interior of the vehicle.” Wyoming sup- state accident statistics are through Mrs. admitted ported by similar data at the national lev- complaint her answer to the initial that she el.4 12,687 totally partially ejected Wyoming who were either had total of traffic acci- 3. vehicles, involving motorcycles, dents cycles motor bi- as a result. Id. at 48. died 1990, resulting pedestrians in 125 Comprehensive Report Wyoming’s record, fatalities. 1989, 45,555 year 4. the latest on For 1990, Data Man- on Traffic Accidents Accident people United in traffic acci- died States Section, Highway Depart- agement Wyoming accident statistics reveal: dents. Motor vehicle fatalities, persons were ment at 1. Of those occupants 101 passenger occupants in car fatal Of the vehicles, persons of motor 64 were restrained, reported crashes who were as vehicle, be drivers of the of whom 52 known to (5,537) fatally injured. Of the 26.9% were safety equipment. Id. at did not use available unrestrained, reported occupants who were as passengers to those known to be 42. Fatalities (16,759) fatally injured. were 50.1% 37, wearing not 29 of whom were amounted occupants in the restrained While 28.8% of 1990, 5,216 persons In a total of seat belts. Id. passenger involved in fatal crashes suf- cars injured in Id. at Of were traffic accidents. injuries, only reported 9.0% of the fered injured persons vehicle acci- those motor injured. occupants were not unrestrained drivers, dents, 3,928 to be of whom were known percent passenger 1 of the car occu- Less than pants incapacitating and 294 466 sustained totally eject- reported as restrained were safety Id. 43. A total of did use a device. not ed, occupants 17.3% of the unrestrained while 2,813 passengers persons who were known to be quarters totally ejected. Almost three were injured in 1990. Of vehicle were in motor (72.4%) totally occupants were those, who injuries, incapacitating 272 sustained ejected were killed. wearing seat belts. Id. at whom 206 were not Progress: Transportation A Fatalities ejection Decade occupant on from motor 43. Statistics Facts, 1989, High- Fatality National percent 1989 of those who show that 93.6 vehicles Traffic Administration, way Depart- U.S. Safety Traffic did suffer fatal in the vehicle remained Transportation. compared percent of those ment of injuries, with 42.5 children, so, abrogation. doing weigh compet- In to “act duty owed a to her negli- ing policies: duty parents did not amount buckle manner which public policy passengers in gence.” find sound the seat belts of their minor light light statistics con- of the fore mentioned of state and national statistics the seat impose duty firming to buckle parents the often dire results for failure to passengers minor who preserving paren- belts of their so and the interest in do supervision dependent care and authority on adult and discretion to raise the tal safety. being and parents for their well fit. child as the see by Negligence defined this court considering parental Numerous courts protection of for the “the failure to observe variety immunity have reviewed of factu person, degree the interests of another particular if cir al situations to determine care, vigilance, precaution and which excep fell within the broad cumstances demand, whereby such other circumstances mainly guise tions. under Reviewed injury.” Nehring v. Rus person suffers parental supervision frequently involv 67, (citing sell, (Wyo.1978) 582 P.2d contribution, ing third-party deci claims Q.R.R., 44 Chicago, B. & Hildebrand Wright v. sions reached have been varied. 1081, (1932)): This court Wyo. 13 P.2d Mich.App. Wright, 134 351 N.W.2d exercising recognized “duty that the has (1984), leaving loaded father’s act of revolv person against inju protect another care child shot er where child could find it and existed at common law ry may either have exception; Lem herself found to be within by statute.” imposed Culver Se Servais, 39 men v. Wis.2d N.W.2d kulich, Wyo. (1968), struck mo where child was bus, exiting upon tor vehicle third-party claim barred Wyo.Stat. 31- Wyoming enacted § safely to instruct child to parents’ failure 8, 1989, requires which 5-1402 on June highway; Leljedal, 71 Pa. cross Miller v. by the driver and front use of seat belts (1983), 372, 455 A.2d 256 Commw. passenger passenger of a vehicle third-party permitted against counterclaim prohibits in a civil action the admissi also theory negligent supervision parent on bility of failure to wear a seat of evidence of child struck defendant’s car. See question here in oc The accident belt. Minzer, supra, n. 3. also 6 § 49.34[2][b] November, 1987 before enact curred Wyo.Stat. 31-5-1402. It is well ment of determining an action for whether application that retroactive of stat settled by paren- negligent supervision was barred not occur ab utes is not favored and will immunity, Jersey stated: tal a New court legislative Wyoming clear intent. Re sent certain areas of activities There are Bottjen, 695 P.2d fining Co. v. family sphere involving paren- within the Stores, (Wyo.1985); Safeway Johnson discipline, care and control tal (Wyo.1977); Bemis v. judi- free from should and must remain Inc., 529, (1965). Texaco, 530 400 P.2d cial intrusion. Parents should be free to of Finding place statute in at the time moral, physical, emo- determine how use, in require seat and the accident to tional, growth of their and intellectual foregoing public policy discus light of the promoted. That is children can best be court, hold, sion, a as did Wisconsin duty privilege. In- both their and their the common law duty, is a based on “there deed, unique philoso- every parent has a care, ordinary to use available of standard rearing of children. That phy of the any statutory independent of belts seat par- philosophy outgrowth is an of the Braun, 34 Bentzler v. Wis.2d mandate.” economic,educational, cultural, ent’s own 626, 362, 639 149 N.W.2d ethical, background, religious all of parent’s judgment on failure to affect the whether which now consider pre- his or her children should be is an exercise of how child’s seat belt a buckle responsibilities of adult- falling pared for the authority or discretion parental philosophical considerations immunity hood. Such parental to exceptions within (citing v. directly come to the fore in matters of N.W.2d at 715 United States Car- 169, (2d parental supervision. Co., 173 Towing roll 159 F.2d Cir.1947)). v. 461 A.2d Jeffries, Foldi 93 N.J. 1145, 1152(1983). Though finding parental This of is standard care or conduct to on the

immunity a bar an action based by using analysis determined a risk-benefit simple supervision that parent’s risk, light of to balance “the away to permitted young a child wander threatened, of social value the interest by neighbor’s from her mother and be bit harm, probability extent of the dog, noted that situations the Foldi court against the value of the interest which the immunity ex parental invoke the seeking protect, expedi actor is to many varied and should be ceptions are pursued.” Page ence the course W. of Foldi, at a case case basis. decided on al., Keeton et Prosser and Keeton on the (5th 1984). 173 ed. Law Torts at § of Though recognizing that the exer through theory This was made well-known authority parental of and discretion Judge cise Learned Hand’s decision Carroll latitude, we cannot must be afforded some seat Towing Whether nonuse of belts Co. disregard life-saving license of known to exercise amounts to failure reasonable through to the failure restrain precautions particular depends care on the circum by encompassing seat children with belts Pasakarnis, stances of the case. 451 exception as to the abro this dereliction analysis risk-benefit So.2d at 454. The be immunity. gation parental of province jury apply comes of the to to resulting injuries surrounding the facts as duty Though we have defined determining or un the reasonableness the ex- law and determined that matter of Dellapenta’s of Mrs. failure reasonableness abrogation ceptions her to buckle children’s belts. of fact for the question it is a apply, do not duty of the if the breach determine plaintiff’s Admissibility B. inju- of proximate cause Donahue, v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. ries. has of available seat belts been Nonuse (Wyo.1983). products as a defense actions allowed required duty “The or standard care contributory liability comparative injury another is risk of permitting juries mitigate one to avoid negligence by per- required reasonable determining percentage that which damages by circumstances.” in the same or similar plaintiff son injury by the as result sustained Kirk, (Wyo.1985) Ely 7 American Law second collision. Graves, P.2d (citing 95:11, Cervelli at 21 Liability Products (Sec- The Restatement (Wyo.1983)). eds., 3d ed. & (Wayne F. Foster et al. considering ond) reasonableness of Torts Schwartz, Supp.1991); Hutchins states: 1986); Lowe, (Alaska P.2d 713; Waterson, a reasonable an act one which 544 A.2d

Where N.W.2d at involving a recognize as risk propriety application man would 365. The another, the risk is unreason- harm to defense actions the seat belt negligent if the risk is the act is extensively. e.g., able and See has discussed been outweigh magnitude as to Stein, Note, such what Issue: Terri The Seat Belt Ju utility of the regards act Action, the law Legislative Disregard dicial manner in which it is particular (1987); or A. L.Rev. 387 David Wes Alaska done. Emerg tenberg, Up Pay: Buckle Defense, 20 Suffolk ing Safety Belt (1965). (Second) Torts 291 Restatement § Mangrum, (1986); 868 MichelleR. U.L.Rev. to be unrea- may be found “[Sjuch conduct Note, Must a Rea Belt The Seat risk of magnitude of the if the sonable Defense: * * * Belt?, 50 Mo. a Seat sonable Man Wear greater than the is harm created Gallub, Note, (1985); Michael B. L.Rev. 968 or the utili- adequate precautions burden Lowe, Mitigation Between Compromise 410 A question.” of the conduct ty 1162

Comparative Fault?: A Assess Critical 425 (Fla.App.1982) So.2d 1143 Controversy ment the Seat Belt (Schwartz, J., and a dissenting)). Proposal Reform, 14 Hofstra L.Rev. allowing Courts evidence of seat (1986); Ackerman, The Seat 319 M. Robert required competent belt nonuse have Belt Reconsidered: A Return to Defense presented evidence be a causal establish Law?, Accountability Tort relationship plaintiff’s between nonuse and (1986). N.M.L.Rev. injuries before the issue be submitted the introduction of seat belt evidence in this case since the failure to use the seat Wyo.Stat. belts occurred before the current statute. Wyoming bility Mrs. appellant presents second of this claim will the “seat negligence simple negligence case and does not involve have a lacking this court level, Chrysler Corp. v. application Wyoming’s comparative Only Dellapenta. as an we declined an offer of single Therefore, belt statute with (1978). statute. evidentiary one 31-5-1402. defense” vehicle a seat belt evidence prior place retroactively We will not claim or action proof at the trial Todorovich, give Wyo.Stat. the case at question case has rollover; it issue, decline to discuss as such. See, it consideration. our Kolbeck v. of admissi apply § light presented this is a analysis prohibit Though 1-1-109 bar, issue; court of a we Bentzler, (Ky.1987); to the Ariz. specifically, a Wisconsin court stated: Wemyss would have affected the ries, In the absence of how the use or nonuse of seat belts one ing ries sustained and the failure to use seat belts, there is evidence before the struct cases where seat We 530 A.2d causal qualified it is jury. ^[*] belts it is therefore 149 N.W.2d at improper Dunn v. Coleman, would jury relationship ^[*] Law v. proper speculate 387, 389, in that conclude express 1130, 1132, ^[*] have had. belts Durso, for the court to Superior credible evidence 729 S.W.2d on the effect that between the regard. ^[*] necessary particular 219 N.J.Super. that, (1986). available and jury Court, opinion ^[*] in those indicat- permit (1986); to in- More inju- inju- Jjc Corp., Motors General F.Supp. agree with those courts that (E.D.Pa., 1990) (where applying court would allow the introduction of evidence of Pennsylvania apply law refused to statute seat belt nonuse proof where an offer of prohibiting the introduction of seat belt relationship made to show a causal be retroactively doing evidence so tween occupant. nonuse and to the rights would alter the substantive In this case such an offer was made litigants). through testimony Schofield, of Officer year a fifteen Wyoming veteran of the admissibility On the issue of trial of evi- Highway Patrol trained accident investi nonuse, the Pasakamis of seat dence gation experience in investigating court stated that: over 700 accidents. Officer Schofield testi expend failure to the minimal ef- [T]he fied that Nicholas from drowning died required fort to fasten an safe- available hypothermia as a of being ejected result ty put spe- has device which been there Wyoming from the vehicle. The Rules of cifically in inju- order to reduce or avoid provide through Evidence Rule 402 for the is, subsequent ries from a accident admission of relevant evidence. Rule 401 matter, very obviously face of the defines relevant evidence as “evidence hav pertinent and thus should deemed ad- ing any tendency to make the existence of damages, part in an action missible any consequence fact that is of to the de which would not have been sustained if probable termination of the action more the seat belt had used. been probable less than it would be without the Pasakarnis, In (quoting 451 So.2d at 453 testimony evidence.” Officer Schofield’s Pasakarnis, Am. surance Co. North v. Wyo.R.Evid. relevant evidence under of relationship between this an a causal was accident without provides and fault. inju- dry Additional evidence and Nicholas’ revealed and favor- of the seat belt nonuse leading up patch able conditions to the of ries. warning no signs ice and marking the icy However, any of offer the record void Dellapenta area. Mrs. was estimated to be the proof made behalf of of on traveling speed below the limit at 50 miles to Bianca. We hold that the trial incurred per hour or less and was decelerating denying of only erred admission court throughout the accident. She had not com- of of Nich- evidence nonuse seat belts pletely steering locked her brakes and was olas find no error in the trial court’s regain to control the vehicle. for of seat evidence Bianca. denial discretion, this Absent abuse court not overturn the decision will trial court’s III. Evidence Substantial deny trial to new motion. Our standard Judg Appellant filed Motion review has been: Notwithstanding New ment the Verdict or always Trial have courts been clothed 50(b) Wyo.R.Civ.P. Ap and 59. Trial under large discretion matter of the pellant appeals the denial of the new trial trial, granting their a new action will motion, not arguing jury that the verdict is appellate not be disturbed in the court supported by Our sufficient evidence. clearly unless that court can and conclu- determining standard review wheth sively say that there was an abuse of support er exists to substantial evidence that discretion. jury requires us to assume that the verdict Atkins, Cody (Wyo.1983) 658 P.2d prevailing party evidence of the is true. (citing Brasel Sims Constr. Co. v. in give every this favorable evidence Co., Neuman Transit any ference and leave out consideration (1963), Sloan, Wyo. quoting Elliott conflicting party. other evidence (1928)). 266 P. Rivermeadows, Hold Inc. Zwaanshoek Appellee presented sufficient evidence to ing, (citing P.2d 665 (Wyo.1988) support jury’s finding negligence. of no Beverage v. Admiral Crown Cork & Seal court, discretion, The district its denied (Wyo.1982)). Corp., 638 P.2d 1274-75 upheld jury new trial motion and findings presumed are to trial court’s up- find sufficient evidence to verdict. We not correct and will be disturbed absent appellant court’s hold trial decision erroneous, showing they clearly presents arguments other to sustain his no inconsistent, contrary great to the of discretion. claim abuse weight Utility of the evidence. Western City Casper, Contractors v. Loquiter Ipsa IY. Res Appellant next contends error the trial case, In evidence was this substantial give an instruction to the court’s refusal jury determine that presented gov- ipsa loquitur. on Our rule jury res Dellapenta in the Mrs. objections jury erns instructions and operation Appellee’s expert of her vehicle. pertinent part: states had reconstruction testified that accident party may assign giving as error the No Dellapenta Mrs. been inattentive she would give an instruction un- failure have lost control of her vehicle sooner objects he thereto before the less roadway. packed snow curve verdict, stating dis- retires to consider its traveling opinion, his she lost control after objects tinctly he the matter to which pack because of a 546 feet on the snow objection. grounds of his point. conditions at that change road Wyo.R.Civ.P. 51. photographs at Based on review of taken scene, investigation report, Though appellant’s objected counsel accident appellee, to the court’s given by instruction conference and the statement appellant’s pro- give several of expert that Mrs. used refusal testified instructions, objection was made care, negligent, posed was not reasonable 1164 plain that error standard ipsa contention refusal of the res for the

on the record rule “Plain argues applied. The states: Appellant should instruction. loquitur purpose” affecting “spirit and errors or defects substantial met the that he has refusal may although they the court’s were by objecting rights to be noticed Rule 51 Memo- post-trial brought in a court.” give the instruction not to the attention of the to for JNOY or of Motion Support Wyo.R.App.P. randum 7.05. that contends Appellant

New Trial. applied plain error court has This that motion indi- response to court’s trial objection infrequently proper rule where previously had been issue cating that the not found. jury instruction has been to a by the awareness demonstrated ruled on Triton, Four factors are 800 P.2d at 511. purpose for the appellant’s court of trial plain error doctrine considered before presented opportunity an instruction applied: will be prior to to make corrections the court (1) clear and un- that the record reflects jury. Alternatively, lack- to the submission of; (2) complained the fact equivocally objection to the finding formal ing a transgression of a prove the facts that instruction, argues that this court appellant law; (3) af- that the error clear rule re- plain standard of apply a error should accused; right of the fects a substantial Wyo.R.App.P. 7.05. under view (4) mate- that the defendant has been previous application of This court’s rially prejudiced by that violation. Bigley Wyo.R.Civ.P. Producing, to constitute instruction, only properly raised of error structions. court's object on the record 1989). response to Triton, Craven, do not find Triton Coal Co. post-trial 51 proper objection stated the permits that motion sufficient objections to to the P.2d appellant’s notation motion or the counsel failed to following, which us v. Mobil Coal giving to consider (Wyo.1990); under jury in (Wyo. Rule trial ipsa loquitur as such: Triton, ic This court has stated cated the act The doctrine of on the doctrine injury; he is therefore P.2d proof. ^[*] at 511 upon plaintiff’s ^[*] negligence (citing Goggins v. as a substitute for res ^[*] (Wyo.1985)). ipsa loquitur inability which caused permitted ^[*] theory ^[*] Harwood, to is specify to specif- of res predi- rely ^[*] his appropriate here: equally is not show or the circumstances do [I]f have su- suggest that defendant should and the obli- opportunity had the Triton him- knowledge, plaintiff or if the perior undesir- objections its to gation to make equal superior means of possesses in- improper jury self unfavorable or able or occurrence, record, the rule structions, during explaining the for- on prior properly not be invoked. conference mal instruction instructions to the submission Co., Equipment v. Newcastle Goedert not do so. burden jury. It did (quoting Hall v. (Wyo.1990) P.2d placed upon the properly that failure Co., (Wyo. Cody Gas refuse to shift party at trial. We 1970)). and, further- judge to the trial burden ipsa loqui- of res Applying the doctrine role to more, perceive it as our we do permit appellant to to this case would tur that burden. assume an inference substitute State, Triton, (citing at 510 Cullen Dellapenta’s negli- evidence of Mrs. direct (Wyo.1977)). P.2d 445 Goedert, 158. Yet gence. 802 P.2d at Triton, argued at trial and continues here, appellant appellant as in is clear It specific acts Mrs. argue appeal on obligation object opportunity and had negligence. Evi- Dellapenta constituted the instruction conference record at inattentiveness, speed, excessive dence of give ipsa loquitur res the failure through error are of control driver such and loss apparent It that no instruction. negligent driving. proof of her presented look now to the made and we objection was argues Appellant that the exclusions un imply the doctrine would Operation of der rule are not exclusive and should the a “more Dellapenta as negligence by Mrs. involving case include the situation in this injury of of in the absence cause probable inter-family reject tort. notion. an We this explanations by witness- as-plausible other is that introduction liabil apparent It the of Guice, credible.” Toussant es found satisfy ity in this would not insurance case But, if (La.App.1982). 414 So.2d recognized agency, of own exclusions due to that the accident was “an inference control, prejudice or a ership, or of or bias negligence other than defendant’s a cause past from witness. It is also clear our it reasonably as one that be drawn as could is liability insurance evidence decisions negligence” the doc- due to his then negligence. issue of not admissible Toussant, at applied. cannot trine Service, Inc., 744 v. BMW Indus. Carlson have that automobile accidents held We 1383, 1388(Wyo.1987). The insurance P.2d happen negligence par- without party this action “the carrier is not a to and The mere Cody, P.2d at 62. ties. insurer in no interests of defendant and not alone of an accident does occurrence to a issues way relevant determination of negligence must have been a indicate that jury.” City Miller v. of fact of plausible just It as to conclude factor. is Lander, P.2d We find occurred change a in road conditions expand to the exclusions under support point Dellapenta lost where Mrs. exception Wyo.R.Evid. 411 to make result, and, this accident oc- as a control liability insurance evidence admission fault. curred without inter-family negligence action. an specific presumably evidence of Since CONCLUSION presented, equal and negligent acts was imply prohibit Dellapen- to that Mrs. not evidence exists Parental does appellant suing injuries is or negligent, acts not child from ta’s were resulting simple automobile ipsa loquitur instruc- death entitled to a res not Wyoming. We to state apply The does not these tion. doctrine duty to buckle the parents hold that have facts, transgres- cannot show appellant passengers their minor seat belts of plain of a rule law under sion clear to do so cannot be considered that failure Therefore, appellant’s standard. error parental authority or discretion an act of must fail. claim therefore, is, exception This is remanded to the immunity. case Liability Insurance V. allow seat belt trial court to evidence motion to admit evi Appellant’s Nicholas to be sub- nonuse Dellapenta’s liability insur dence Mrs. jury a causal connec- mitted to the that, in Appellant argues was denied. ance tion nonuse exists between instance, liability particular evidence sustained. have admitted insurance should been support find substantial evidence interest, jury party of a real inform court’s and affirm trial verdict company. the insurance Appellant motion. denial of a new trial insurance evi- liability admission loquitur a res instruc- ipsa not entitled governed by Wyo.R.Evid. 411: dence tion, committed as no error was trial denial of this result of the court’s person or was was Evidence that liability insur- or admission of instruction liability is not admissible against insured ance. negli- he acted upon the issue whether wrongfully. This

gently or otherwise to the trial court this case We remand require the exclusion rule does not opin- with this proceedings consistent liability insurance evidence of ion. purpose, for another such offered when JJ., CARDINE, filed ownership, or agency, con- THOMAS proof of opinions. dissenting trol, a witness. prejudice bias I that the facts of this case THOMAS, Justice, dissenting. understand by Wyo.Stat. are not controlled 31-5- opinion of from the I must dissent (1991) tragic because the accident agree I I find that in this case. Court adoption I antedated of the statute. written, has Cardine much of what Justice note, however, adopted by that the rule why he concurred I clear as but am not statute, particu- to Court is antithetical the in agree to concur I cannot in the result. (f), provides: which larly subsection the My position is that before the result. (f) person’s Evidence of a failure to change policy a upon a case to Court seizes safety required by this act wear a parental as the doctrine of position, such any in shall not be admissible civil action. in immunity, it should have a case which that doc- liability clear absent Indeed, would be seems to confirm the this statute instance, theory a new of trine. In this Wyo- of the seat belt defense absence then liability adopted parents, for which is hardly consistent with a ming, seems of the as the vehicle abolition requir- serves liability depends upon that theory of immunity. parental of Further- doctrine I ing children to wear seat belts. even more, theory that the of I am not satisfied the reaction of the Court wonder what only parent who liability should accuse that created a classi- would be to statute tragic acci- driving at the time of the parents if a only fication of and children required If children are to be dent. upon attack were made such constitutional belts, parents must share wear seat both judicial Yet the classification is a statute. failure. responsibility for that as to the accomplished without comment parents. duties of adults other than I sincere reservations I confess that have I paren- Finally, believe that Justice Cardine of the doctrine about abolition telling point he discusses the immunity, as the rule has been makes a when tal even implementing difficulties in the Court’s majority. While tent limited I find it hard to that large enough to accommodate this rule. would believe may be intrusion, first time the chil- I satisfied that the tent this was the am not without large enough to suit the entire dren had ridden a vehicle wear- will be demanding ing I re- seat belts. The Court is Many of what have come to camel. adjustment Wyoming families. upon style founded life gard as frivolous lawsuits satisfied, parents depend If the rule is to be must theory negligent parenting abso- children, in their from the time lutely upon the of the doctrine of inculcate abolition infants, they com- the demand that seat belts parental immunity, and that abolition perceived at all times. This must be a in some that was be worn menced fashion parental responsibility, and it is not shared as innocuous. assigned only just that it be to the event, if the is to be any abolition happens driving the vehicle who to be when upon a accomplished it should not occur happens. The father should the accident theory liability. of a creative fulcrum case, party also be a defendant this notes, jurisdiction this As Justice Cardine representing simply instead of his interests agreed that the failure of a yet has not of the children the moth- and those a seat belt can be invoked plaintiff wear Marriages er. have a difficult time surviv- theory to limit or avoid by a defendant as a ing tragedy such as without damages. Yet, recovery of the Court creating government an- judicial branch require has decided that the failure here separation of the interests other reason for as a wearing of seat belts can serve parents. liability. agree I do not ground While Requiring parents to defendants jurisprudence, I am both be application of with this policy argument of theory liability not diminish the is would satisfied that case, only family harmony that has been a traditional after primary issue parental immunity. any justi- argument favor question is resolved is there clear, however, that might It make more considering the abolition of fication for find a thrust of the rule is to immunity. the real parental doctrine funding expenses passenger rather than source for vehicle is in motion on public highways. streets and upon enhancing the simply an insistence (b) children. safety Wyoming (a) Subsection of this section does apply not to: I cannot to the creation of a subscribe (i) Any person who has a written state- liability contrary theory novel physician ment that it is not ad- legislative policy to set aside a Wyoming person for the safety visable to wear a immunity. traditional doctrine of physical reasons; belt for or medical I decision of the Court dissent from the (ii) Any passenger vehicle which this case. required equipped safety belts law; under federal CARDINE, Justice, dissenting. (iii) A carrier of the United States judge A and old of a court of limited wise postal performing service duties as a in jurisdiction sparsely populat- one of our carrier; postal asked, ed rural communities was once “Do (iv) Any person properly in secured a response judges make law?” His was: safety system child restraint in accor- do, they myself I made some “Of course through dance with W.S. 31-5-1301 31- today.” today And so our court assumes a 5-1305; or position judicial of extreme activism in der- (v) Any person occupying the front ogation powers given of constitutional operable seat a vehicle which all legislators by enacting for 90 elected the safety being by restraints are used people Wyoming, state of retroac- passengers. driver or tively, a seat law. belt (c) No violation of this section shall: Sadly, make law. this is Bad cases bad (i) Be moving counted as a violation one of those cases. It is a case in bad purpose for suspending a driver’s accept which members of this court cannot 31-7-129; license under W.S. jury finding negligence, deny- of no thus a (ii) grounds increasing Be for insur- ing recovery for the death of this minor premiums part ance or made But, confronting child. instead issue kept by department pursu- abstracts honestly forthrightly, by reversing 31-5-1214. ant to W.S. judgment supported by evidence (d) No motor vehicle shall be halted granting trial in accordance a new passenger for and no driver or shall be 50(d), provides: W.R.C.P. which cited for a violation of this section. appellate judg-

If the court reverses the (e) All citations for violations of the ment, nothing precludes in this rule it motor vehicle laws of this state and for determining appellee that from of traffic ordinances or violations traffic trial, directing to a or from entitled new regulations authority of a local shall con- the trial court to determine whether a issuing tain a notation officer granted[,] shall new trial be indicating complied whether the licensee Compliance with this section. with this legislates Wyoming for the court seat section shall entitle a licensee to a five legislature Wyoming that the has belt law ($5.00) dollar reduction the fine other- adopt, although consistently refused to lob- imposed by any having juris- wise court Finally heavily every session. bied alleged diction over the offense. 14, 1989, legislature adopted our March (f) person’s failure to Evidence law, 31-5-1402, present W.S. seat belt required by safety wear a belt as this act provides: which any shall not civil action. be admissible (a)Each passen- driver and front seat 14, 1989, Approved March effective June operated in ger passenger vehicle 1989; 15, 1991, February effec- amended wear, state shall and each driver of a July tive require a front passenger car shall that wear, properly legislation adopted passenger shall The demonstrates required safety necessary detail to know what is adjusted and fastened belt when agree five-year-old a four- or child can is illustrative of the compliance and meddling strapped in an in a seat for a three-to-five created court belt problems properly country family more trip of this kind which hour across on a vaca- area The legislative energy consideration. full that is suited to tion? Children are so the record and recites goes impossible they strapped court outside sit to a seat they claim period all of the statistics which any detail of time. And substantial support that accrue year the benefits of the fifteen old who unbuckles what All of those statistics wearing seat belts. any city his seat 40 miles from or presented over over and more were him put Does the beat town? legis- and to again legislative committees him out of the car to walk to the next town during hearings on the seat belt lators neither, if he refuses? If he does is he me, entirely inappropri- For it is question. Or, continuing trip? court, power ate that this without just helplessly must he sit in his car? How evidence, authority take conduct hear- one course of action should can know what statistics, and en- ings, data and assemble be chosen? judi- legislation, this kind of act undertakes flip rule There is a side to the now cial activism. adopted. Failure to wear a seat belt has previously recognized a have not generally called the “seat belt de been wearing duty require the that would (contributory negli fense.” defense Chrysler Corp. v. Todoro seat belts. gence) injured per is asserted vich, (Wyo.1978), the trial 580 P.2d 1123 seeking damages per for sons to recover objection an to the admis court sustained injuries. Traditionally failure to sonal of failure to wear seat sion evidence wear seat belts could defeat a claim of belts, appeal. I and that was affirmed on If damage personal injury. for it purports to problem with what be have thought recently enacted that the statute people of law now enacted for the the new result, prevents again think about the in the Wyoming. state of As stated declaring legis for propensity of this court opinion, it is this: court’s lative enactments unconstitutional. See light public policy find sound State, (Wyo. e.g., Hoem v. impose statistics to the fore mentioned 1988) (holding Wyo unconstitutional duty to the seat belts parents buckle Act); ming Medical Review Panel Mills v. passengers depen- their minor who are (Nos. Reynolds, (Wyo.1992) 837 P.2d 48 supervision care and dent on adult -195, 20, 1992) published July and 89-193 being safety. their well II) (Mills (holding unconstitutional a work why And will this now be Maj. op. at 1160. granted compensation er’s statute which McCullough As said in the rule of law? by coemployees from suits to em Co., 789 P.2d Rule Ins. Golden ployees scope acted within the of their who J., (Golden, dissenting): (Wyo.1990) employment); Wyo Johnson v. State of ‘it-is-so-because-we-say-so’jurispru- ming Hearing Office, Examiner’s “This nothing (holding than an (Wyo.1992) constitutes other P.2d 158 unconstitu dence force; provided rea- a statute attempted exercise brute tional which driver’s son, place.” persons persuasion, suspension much less has no license under 19 any after conviction of alcohol-related of Reproductive (quoting Webster unconstitutional, fense). Once declared 490, 552, Serv., 109 S.Ct. 492 U.S. Health again defense in effect. seat belt will (1989) (Black- 3040, 3075, 106 L.Ed.2d 410 J., dissenting mun, concurring part support newly Cases cited for part)). always-existing discovered and claimed rule leaving duty Wyoming involve a loaded re- purported new rule finds The it, any a child could find a child articulated other volver where never before purported exiting unsupervised injured, is that the a vehicle Added to that court. crossing seriously I cases, impos- and a child a street. many be almost duty, support the far- comply. question will that these cases Who sible with which of a force a minor to be duty out at all while vehicle belted times

being driven. that seat belts save lives.

I have doubt we, constitutionally judges, are

But as authority to power and with the

vested incomprehensible vague, kind

adopt this not, and we

legislation? We know we powers separation a disservice to

do functioning of our orderly, efficient do. government I would when

form perceive face on what we

prefer to head jury. unjust incorrect and verdict

an perfect, although it jury system is not right most time. We have duty supervise jury

power injustice reasonable minds

correct when wrong, not differ that the

would should do so.

and we only

Accordingly, I concur the result opinion dissent otherwise from

but court. INC.; TIRES, Cheyenne Tire

BIG-O

Center, Stone, Inc.; and Scott (Defendants),

Appellants Cowboy

Margherita SANTINI Inc.,

Dodge, Appellees

(Plaintiffs). SANTINI, Appellant

Margherita

(Plaintiff), TIRES, INC.; Cheyenne Tire

BIG-O (Defendants). Center, Inc., Appellees 91-38,

Nos. 91-39.

Supreme Wyoming. Court 11, 1992.

Sept.

Case Details

Case Name: Dellapenta v. Dellapenta

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 26, 1992

Citation: 838 P.2d 1153

Docket Number: 91-8

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.