*1 * * * supported logic sign by legal plaira and was con- No patronage. * * * sense. this rule displayed at the entrance to common should spicuously application the station be limited in its indicating that owners or premises the operators and their that were not of motor vehicles and motorists closed was * * *” or'guests. toilets fa'milies fact that the to enter. night might at be found to left unlocked course, in the before us the- Of situation purpose be they could used indicate a pur- automobile had made her driver by persons patronized at time who a than< station of defendant other chase the station. occurred, injury the one where a cir- any opinion go do not as to cumstance not which “While we so far stranger upon premises attention, coming to our and for this rea- a has come may after the station was closed would con- son the instant case be said to be ex- circumstances, Nevertheless, question- sidered invitee in we deem the an treme. jury might we do reason- status here one for the hold invitee to be trier ably plaintiff found that was since under the evidence disclosed fact they under the men invitee circumstances reasonable could differ their con- They reason- could have existed. clusions.
ably the de- could have concluded that Affirmed. acquiesced the toi- fendant use plaintiff let at the reason
of a mutual benefit and the to itself * ** guest driver a and his car.
Offering such to build facilities tends
up good proprietor a will between the and customer. is difficult otherwise explain the defendant’s custom leav- Virgie Wright, LOGAN, Belva Lorraine M. ing the toilet after doors unlocked clos- Popham, Geiser, Rose Coossin and Vivian hours. determination below), (Plaintiffs plaintiff, involving, status of as it and did, findings and inferences was which Retail Clerks' Union 102and Homer Local D. Francisco, Appellants (Third-Party make, jury for the properly sub- below), Defendants mitted them as of fact. * * *» STANNARD, Goddard, S. G. R. Laura M. Wingrove Co., v. Home Land Goddard, Larry Goddard, Floyd Schach 563, 566, W.Va. 196 S.E. 116 A.L.R. Wyoming and L terle 1197,the court reviewed where- situation corporation, Appellees (Defendants below). driver, in a purchase who small at a No. 3614. station, filling accompanied by guest Supreme Wyoming. Court of injured who seeking while to use March 1968. toilet facilities. Its inter- is both Rehearing Denied June esting significant: and “ * * * operator We think the of a
filling equipped station toilets for
public, distinguished use, private, if
impliedly, expressly, invites the
traveling thereof, public to make use
that there is no distinction between
obligation responsibility man
who owns drives a car into station guest. We think this conclusion
25' Joffe, Harold Joffe, Scott & appellees. HARNSBERQER, Before J.,C. an<? GRAY, PARKER, McINTYRE and JJ. Mr. McINTYRE delivered the Justice opinion of the court.
In a controversy suit, the district Big County tempo- Horn issued rary injunction to restrain individual work- ers, union a local of retail and a un- clerks representative ion picketing, boycott- ing or otherwise interfering regu- lar course of of L business parties enjoined appealed. so Decisions suprepip ming prior adoption of our state rules procedure of civil the effect that a appealable is an order. Leith, 342, Wyo. 316, Olson 71 343, 345; Richardson, Wyo. Weaver 21 1151; 1148, 132 Englehart, P. Anderson v. 196, 571, 18 105 P.
These decisions were language based on 3-5301, W.C.S.1945, pertain- contained in § W, special proceedings. 72(a), Rule R.C.P., 3-5301, copied verbatim from § W.C.S.1945, expressly rule have no stating that a is not an appealable of the de- order. Since to, especially referred since cisions adoption procedure, of rules of civil discourage procedures been trend has piecemeal appeals. Cheese See Switzerland Market, Inc., Association, Inc. v. E. Horne’s 23, 193, 195, 17 L.Ed.2d 385 87 S.Ct. U.S. 23; Na Rippey v. Denver United States 704, Bank, D.C.Colo., F.Supp. tional Harris, 717; Wyo., Reeves v. ex Intermountain rel. Pacific State Exp., District Court of Inc. v. Second Judicial st., Wyo., and Pe Di Ltd., 2 Tradeways Shipping, tition of World Cir., 373 F.2d As far as despite accepted appellants’ appeal
we have final deter- there the fact that by the rights parties mination of therefore McClintock, trial court. Jr., Urbigkit, Walter C. comes, be made of what needs to Cheyenne, appellants. Urbigkit, Mai & Because, whether it existing was a bona fide by appeal presented matters not, & L sale or proceedings? stage of theory Inc. existed on the prohibition con- not for If it were 1967, is C. W.S.1957, 27-241, tained *3 merely not confined to labor dis- the trial court question be whether would putes employer between an quo preserving the justified in status employees. immediate deter- the action can be the merits of until mined. er pertinent have tion order or in such gly acts: whether or the facts involved “No son or ling, “(e) Giving publicity fraud or the effect of [******] any or in court of the State of or jurisdiction However, persons participating any labor part: by any dispute by advertising, speaking, temporary violence;” concert, any case dispute other method not involving think we or issue in, any doing, permanent prohibit any of the any Wyoming shall or labor whether sin- or existence must consid- growing out provides restraining interested following involving dispute, injunc- patrol- per- of, in not substitute tion of whether the sale was bona tion judgment.” the sale to L & G the trial vit of Second, the record two reasons. ment of the trial court on the factual clear and for complainants sion at In this only. However, prejudice any In issuing purposes particular such Rule 54(b), time before the have First, (1) The Sale finding such of demanded judgment Stores, discloses case we think we should the record temporary specific finding finding W.R.C.P., is temporary filed Inc. was a valid “subject entry that an affida- a trial discloses is tentative against injunction of [final] the judg- makes fide, by jury. injunc ques- revi judge temporary trial who issued the in- foregoing The it clear the section makes junction. jurisdiction this case had no issue a if the case is that, apparent This makes it in the event growing one “involving or out of labor a factual determination of whether the sale dispute.” But the court there was no was bona fide becomes essential Stores, dispute labor L & Inc. G pending litigation, such Thus, right the trial issue the court to by factual determination will be made either injunction the correct- turns on a jury judge. or a different finding ness of the that there was an ab- fact finder in the trial the merits should on dispute. sence aof labor findings be free to make of fact without di- us, any need being rection from there absent controversy in- original here labor interlocutory appellate or deci reason for Stannard, volved arose when G. owner of sion. the Ben Franklin Store ming, discharged employees all who were the re finding face of a union, being members of a all of his labor valid, we judge that the sale straining employees. purport- full-time Thereafter a temporary injunction is ed sale Ben Franklin Store and busi- point (1) appellants’ clearly illegal, far as as Stores, ness made to L & In the G suggestion has been no is concerned. There appellants now before us are claim- ineq injunction unreasonable or that such is dispute L & there was G arbitrarily terms; in it's that it was uitable Stores, Inc. when issued; ade that it was issued without or issued: Hence, particular quate far as bond. this compelling case we find no
(1) Because the sale was not a bona sale; regulate the status adjudicate reason to fide vancy District, Wyo., interim parties during the between Schunk, Wyo., Thickman entry the date Felton, and Strom judgment. final Dispute Way Labor Either The record to the matter pertaining time in devoted much plaintiffs’ now before indicates us counsel discussing the argument their brief and oral argued point that an and em L & that a labor existed with ployee relationship necessary in order regardless G of whether to have as is contem fide, sale L & Inc. was bona plated As C. 1967. *4 em- relationship cause the record, near can tell from the howev as we required a la- order to have ployee er, pass attempted the trial court has not contemplated in bor upon that contention. see no reason We temporary in- granting Although, why urged special find- case, made trial court junction, the we should by G. Stannard attempt made the new the sale influence or direct what ing that sale, find- judge’s point ought Inc. was valid decision on the L & G made law was or conclusion ing of fact be. a labor point that respect pro- further remanded n existed faith of good regardless of ceedings opinion. not inconsistent PARKER, J., concurs in the result. de- consistently refused court has Our ON PETITION FOR REHEARING decided not first cide matters PER CURIAM. taken. See from which (cid:127)court petition rehearing is denied Kondziela, Wyo., 405 P.2d Moore equally divided court. Valley Conser- Water Bridger In re