Worthington v. State

Virginia R. O. WORTHINGTON H.

Worthington, as Guardians of the Per Kelly Worthington,

son and Estate J. Minor, (Plaintiffs Appellants below),

a v. Wyoming and STATE Wyoming, Highway Commission below), (Defendants Appellees below), (Defendant Malar A.

Edward Automobile Mutual Farm

and State Appellee Company, Insurance below). (Intervenor Individually SCOTT, A.

Clifford A. Scott, Mark A. Mark Father (Plain Appellants Individually, Scott, below),

tiffs High Wyoming, the State

The STATE Wyoming, and the

way Commission Depart Vehicle Division

Motor Taxation, Appel of Revenue

ment below), (Defendants

lees (Defendant below),

Edward A. Malar Insurance Mutual Automobile Farm below). (Intervenor Appellee Company, Harry Mil M. MILLER A.

Patricia below), (Plaintiffs ler, Appellants

The STATE of and the State

Highway Wyoming, Commission of

Appellees (Defendants below), Grandpre, Co., W.

James Reiman-Wuerth

Wyoming Corporation, Wyoming Bever Inc.,

age, Wyoming Corporation, Oli Distributing

ver Frontier Olsen d/b/a

Co., City Cheyenne, Wyoming and the

(Defendants below).

Nos. 5016-5018.

Supreme Wyoming. Court

July 1979. Sept.

Rehearings Denied Smith, Stanfield, &

John E. Stanfield Laramie, Scott, signed ap- the briefs and appel- peared argument on behalf of in oral lants-Worthington No. Blunk, Gavend, S. Sullivan &

Forrest Johnson, Denver, Blunk Bryans and & Colo., appeared in signed the briefs and oral appellants-Scott on behalf of argument No. 5017. Patton, H. John C.

David Carmichael Statkus, Cheyenne, signed of Carmichael & appellants-Miller the brief on behalf 5018; argument presented by was No. oral Mr. Carmichael. Laramie, Joseph Cardine, and Laird

G. DeMoulin, Anderson, Campbell Campbell Denver, Colo., signed the brief Laugesen, & Farm appellee-intervenor on behalf Company in Mutual Automobile Insurance 5017; argument was oral Nos. & presented by Mr. Cardine. Gen., Rooney, and Glenn A. Atty. J.

John Gen., Atty. Chey- Williams, Asst. Senior appellees enne, on behalf of signed the brief Highway Commis- Wyoming, State State of and the Motor Vehicle Wyoming, sion of Department Revenue Division of the 5018; & oral Taxation in Nos. by Mr. Williams. presented argument Trautwein, Cheyenne, Blair J. signed the brief Lawyers’ Association, Trial curiae. on behalf of amicus RAPER, J., McCLINTOCK, Before C. the north terminated driveway as a to a ROSE, JJ., place GUTHRIE, of business called Mr. THOMAS Steak. J., highway east and west lanes of the Retired.* separated by grass large median with a

GUTHRIE, Justice, Retired. asphalt path area for Rosebud to make its beverage Lincolnway. across vehicle appeal separate This three involves suits pulled going out of Mr. Steak south on arising from two different factual situa- stopped asphalt Rosebud and portion tions. These actions were consolidated for of the median area between the east and purpose appeal of this briefing for and Lincolnway west lanes of and waited for argument. All three of appellants these beverage traffic to clear. The truck was on vigorously asserted immuni- area, the south side of the median which ty, insofar applies as it to the State and would be the north lane for traffic on Rose- particularly to its activities the area of Grandpre bud. When the vehicle entered its construction general operation and Lincolnway, westbound lane of his vi- through highway system the state should be by sion to the east was obscured the bever- abrogated. The two factual situations truck, age which was located in the median. herein involved are hereafter set out. Grandpre The impacted plaintiff’s ear with immediately motor vehicle upon entrance Case Number 5018 into the westbound lane of Lincolnway, and This action involves an automobile acci- plaintiff, Miller, not, Patty not, had could or dent that day occurred on the 6th of Janu- Grandpre did not see turning vehicle ary, at or near the intersection of East because her by vision was blocked the bev- Lincolnway and Rosebud Street near the erage Grandpre truck. pickup hit the edge Cheyenne eastern city outside the driver’s side of the Miller vehicle with and complaint against limits. The the State of injuries Miller, resultant to Patricia which Wyoming and the Highway State Depart- were most permanent severe and caused ment sets out various and alleged assorted injury. negligent but, actions. It is most detailed disposal court made by this action in summary, appears to be a claim based sustaining the motion to dismiss by filed upon alleged negligence of the Highway State, upon which relied the doctrine of Department improper for an and unsafe sovereign immunity. design accident, in the area of this for fail- ure proper to have the traffic controls and Case Numbers 5016 and 5017 for failure to proper signs. have The exact Although separate there are two suits nature of plaintiff’s claim is difficult of numbers, involved under these they are determination. upon both based one set of facts. Otto and This accident involved three vehicles: a Virginia Worthington, H. guardians large, truck, beverage delivery which was daughter, the estate Kelly their J. attempting to turn from south on Rosebud Worthington, minor, and Clifford A. to east on Lincolnway, plaintiff’s vehicle, Scott, individually and as father of Mark A. proceeding was Lincolnway, west on Scott, Scott, individually, and Mark A. filed Grandpre’s defendant vehicle which these suits damages injuries to recover for turning was from east on Lincolnway to that were suffered as a result of this occur- north on Rosebud. highway, at the rence. The accident in occurred accident, time of the was a four-lane road approximately 16 miles southwest of Lara- with service upon roads either mie, side. Rose- Wyoming, 28, 1976, August on after a bud extended Lincolnway vehicle, south of but to by which had been driven Mark * ROONEY, J., having par- Constitution, ming 1—106(f),W.S.1977, recused himself from and § 5— ticipation case, GUTHRIE, J., retired, January order of the court entered on assigned, having was been retained in active judicial pursuant V, Wyo- service Art. accident, the time that because disabled, leave Scott, forcing him to became in full had force of the road with State upon shoulder easterly Anoth- from Farm in an direction. insurance pointed car effect a vehicle, being by Kelly $1,000,000.00 was driven er for with a limit Mutual same parked upon the Worthington, was occurrence, Highway De- the State each light facing west so that shoulder sovereign immunity had waived partment headlights its would illuminate coverage. extent of this to the vehicle, it. At upon he worked while Scott subject of consideration This became the ques- highway place, time and After the intervention trial court. by the resurfaced recently tion had Farm Mutual this suit the said State Highway Department, Wyoming State sought Company, they declarato- Insurance mark- strip no center shoulder coverage denying and deter- ry judgment having been they obliterated ings, rights mining their liabilities operations. resurfacing course of Department. The court Highway line and no temporary There was no center did arise under found that matter absence thereof. signs warning of the policy, coverage said insurance August approxi- evening of 28 at On sum- Farm thereafter moved for and State m., while and mately p. 8:45 the Scott finding. judgment implement this mary Worthington parked were as be- vehicles appeal- granted. Appellants have This was fore-mentioned, which an vehicle eastbound as well as the other judgment from that ed being by a Edward was driven defendant Highway Depart- judgment which held the vehicle. Malar ran the back of the into Scott sover- immune under the doctrine of ment Scott, standing vehi- who between his was immunity. eign car, Worthington se- cle and the sustained questions no appear and It would the loss leg injuries, which resulted in vere the appellants that all in either case raised legs. was seat- Kelly Worthington of both with the Audi- proper claims had filed ear, her she sustained a severe ed in and which period within within time tor injury, paralysis. led to total neck they should be filed. propelled forward The Scott vehicle of Worthington into the vehicle as a result been dis- Although there has considerable Malar impact the Malar vehicle. with the cases of Oroz v. by this court in cussion had years age was a man 67 of and over of Carbon County Board of Commissioners apparently retired as a ranch hand with (1978); 1155 and Wyo., P.2d County, 575 is made little resource. The claim financial Worland, Wyo., 546 P.2d City of Jivelekas virtually right that he had blind in his upon involves attack (1976), this case 419 but had been is- eye years, for several he deci- precedent and numerous long-settled just license sued an unrestricted driver’s nor Jiv- Neither Oroz by this court. sions Malar- prior seven months accident. authority upon dis- elekas, supra, are of caused explained a cloud dust may of this matter. be made posal vision, gravel upon road obscured his question herein principle and basic of a with the lack and that this combined abrogate the doc- should whether court him to line line caused center and shoulder immunity as it insofar trine run into car. There is no the Scott Wyoming. solely the State applies center line and the shoulder determination, destroyed as result of this line had been In order make been re- con- resurfacing had not which should be operation queries are two stored. and which are: sidered sovereign immunity, (1) Is the doctrine is, however, and an- There another factor governmen- to so-called as contrasted with connection other factual situation immunity, part municipal tal or totally than the this claim that is different result body of law as a Plaintiffs, here, statutory our appellants fur- case. Miller 8-1-101, W.S. appeal, adoption § ther assert with this in connection 800 distinguished This court has between any change so that must be left municipal governmental or doctrines legislative action? sovereign immunity. Retail

(2) Does Art. Constitu- University Clerks Local AFL-CIO tion, follows, which is as Wyo., (1975), Wyoming, 531 P.2d open every “All courts shall be Jivelekas, supra. This and see Oroz and person injury person, for an done to firmly upon rested the fact view is rather reputation property jus- or shall have universally recog that the is almost former sale, tice administered without denial being springing nized as in and rooted delay. brought Suits Devon, the case of Russell v. The Men of against the state in such manner and supra. County v. Board of Com See Oroz legislature may in such courts as the missioners, supra, and authorities cited. As by law direct.” mentioned, just we have it is heretofore clearly recognized sovereign immunity deny recovery a right of to a claim- part parcel was and is a of the common damages ant for a clear absent con- adoption long prior law of our feder legislature? sent to such suit Hall, al constitution.1 Nevada v. 440 U.S. We have heretofore held that the doc- 1182, 1188, S.Ct. 59 L.Ed.2d governmental trine of municipal immu- notes a statement Alexander nity, sovereign immunity, as contrasted to 81, p. No. Hamilton in The Federalist 547: genesis “. . . found its Russell v. . . is inherent in the nature ‘[it] Devon, Term.Rep. The Men of sovereignty not to be amenable to the Eng.Rep. 359 See Collins v. Me of an without its consent’ suit individual ” Hospital County, morial of Sheridan su Hall, supra, Nevada v. at 419 pra; Muskopf Corning Hospital v. Dis 16, 1188, fn. 99 S.Ct. at fn. 16. trict, 211, 89, 91, Cal.Rptr. 55 Cal.2d 11 Additionally, readily it is discernable that 457, 459; 359 Hargrove P.2d v. Town of governmental subdivisions included in mu- Beach, Fla., 130, 132, Cocoa 96 So.2d 60 districts, nicipal corporations, city, school or 1193; Haney City Lexing A.L.R.2d v. of any government, pos- other subdivisions of ton, 738, Ky., 739, 386 10 S.W.2d A.L.R.2d any sess real none of attributes of 1362; Manchester, City Merrill v. of 114 are, sovereignty being, they as creatures of 380; 722, 378, N.H. Ayala 332 A.2d v. delegated authority which flows from the Education, Philadelphia Board of Public sovereign state. Retail Local 187 Clerks 584, 879; 877, 453 Pa. Long 305 A.2d v. supra, University Wyoming, AFL-CIO v. of Weirton, W.Va., City 832, of 214 S.E.2d conceptualize 531 P.2d at 887. It is hard to 851; Milwaukee, Holytz City v. of 17 town, mayor city Wyoming or or of a 26, 618, 620; Prosser, Wis.2d 115 N.W.2d county the chairman of the board of com- Torts, 131, (4th ed.); Law of p. 978 cf. § kingly missioners in a role. The distinction Worland, City Jivelekas v. Wyo., of 546 recognized between these doctrines was 419, view, P.2d 425. Under this munici District, N.D., Kitto v. Minot Park 224 pal immunity cannot be held to be a 795, (1974), N.W.2d 800-801 and numerous legislative 8-3-101,* rule virtue of § cited authorities therein. This distinction W.S.1977, ...” Oroz v. Board of might pursuant alone indicate that County County, Commissioners of Carbon 8-1-101, W.S.1977, sovereign immunity of § supra, 575 P.2d at 1157. really statutory is a matter of law This is a court-created rule. Collins v. Me and not court-made law —as are all immuni- Hospital County, morial Wyo., granted Sheridan ties which were to so-called munici- 1339, pal 521 P.2d 1341 governmental or subdivisions and English *This 8-1-101, 3, Law, statute is now denominated 1. Vol. Holds- § History (3rd Ed.), suggests W.S.1977. 466 worth, principle p. in 1483. adopted by Chancery

801 were in this matter to the court to accede origins case owe their spring from or it Devon, importunity appellants, these would be this, supra. find We The Men reverse necessary directly for us to substan- decision, unnecessary however, because authority Wyoming tial and direct viola- rely case and we disposal our in this because tion of the of stare decisis and to doctrine upon Constitution. Art. § seems to be very further take a view which few, any, precedents or rules if There minority country. much in the in this recognized longer or fol that have been concerning the consent of The rule fidelity greater than the rule lowed with sovereign demonstrably ancient is of ori- Hjorth was set out case of case of gins, as observed in the Nevada v. University, v. Trustees of Royalty Company Hall, supra, at 1185: 99 S.Ct. 30 222 P. 9 which held Wyo. truly independent Constitution, “The 8, Wyoming that Art. its own courts suit in has that no can be self-executing; suit as a matter absolute enjoyed against leg the State until the maintained Only the right sovereign’s for centuries. for filing; such islature makes qualify the own consent could absolute consent, and, absent such no suit immunity.” character of that claim could be made State. in several down appears This was followed cases opinion Later in the same fol- including the Retail through and case of lowing language: v. University 187 AFL - CIO Clerks Local “The the Court cases language used and see the fol Wyoming, supra; further limits, construing language like the give recognition to this lowing cases on used debates ratification of during the Company v. State Constitution, emphasized rule: Utah Construction wide- Commission, Wyo. 45 19 P.2d Highway the view that a spread acceptance of sov- (1933); Highway ereign Com nevér amenable suit 951 Price State is .”99 mission, 312 without S.Ct. Wyo. P.2d its consent. at 1188. (1946); Wyoming Liquor Com Harrison mission, Wyo. 177 P.2d us, has led Insofar our research (1947); Wyoming Game and Fish Ellis v. provi appear this constitutional would 226, 229, Commission, Wyo. 286 P.2d 597 it, sion, extremely or one similar found Arzy, (1955); Wyo., Hamblin v. Pennsylvania. These North Dakota (1970). In addition to the fact P.2d closely track our section.2 provisions most clearly by that this rule is most established jurisdictions noteworthy It is that both such authorities, numerous in states the considered effect of have since 1974 in our having provision a similar the one provi constitutional markedly these similar constitution, universally it has been almost expressed views the sions with different provision, empowers that such held the provisions; effect such bringing District, to authorize the the Minot Park su cases Kitto v. providing ; and the Depart suits the State Pennsylvania pra Mayle and therefor, procedure self-executing is not 388 A.2d Highways, ment of 479 Pa. requires positive, legislative (1978). provision definite ac the and Kitto held abrogating can be absent prevent tion. No suit maintained did not that court clearly immunity, set out statute. governmental such consent the so-called 300, p. 954; 72 Am. a distinction between 81A because there was § C.J.S. States immunity, Thus, sovereign the Jur.2d, States, p. governmental 509. if this “ District, may brought against supra, state in ‘Suits be 2. footnote v. Minot Park Kitto courts, manner, in such p. in such such cases, 800: assembly may, by “ legislative as the brought against be the Com- ‘Suits law, I, North Da- Section direct.’ Article manner, courts monwealth in such in such kota Constitution.” Legislature may in cases as the such I, 11, Pennsylva- law direct.’ Article Section Constitution, nia P.S. Despite recent cases in which “. . . governmental mandate did not accepted the this Court majority It not hold on immunity. did municipal of article interpretation Commonwealth’s The fol- sovereign immunity. for retain- I, the sole reason section as court’s decision: lowing summarizes we sovereign immunity, ing the rule of sovereign im- The matter of “. . . provi- that this constitutional now believe itself, which is un- munity of the state judicial abrogation of does not forbid sion decision, is one on touched Rather, the doctrine. action. The legislative we would solicit “ neu- ‘The Constitution immunity remain for injustices of state prohibits requires nor tral —it neither wrongful act of injured by one who merely pro- sovereign immunity. It ” . . government. . the state or absence of presence vides that N.W.2d at 808. in immunity shall be decided ’ Mayle, supra, which this is Contrasted to . manner. a non-constitutional sovereign immunity in a decision abolishes adoption of this sec- history “The 1978. This is a July, at the end of made Framers of 1790 tion indicates upon attack impassioned well written and Legislature, if intended to allow the sovereign immunity ap- concept desired, in which the Com- to choose cases ongoing immune, history of an not parently reflects a but did monwealth should constitutional vigorous campaign, grant or con- intend to apparently (Footnotes omit- to the Commonwealth.” propri- that court as to the troversy, within ted.) 388 A.2d at 716-717. This ety of the abolition of this doctrine. the view of four mem- represents

decision arriving Mayle reveals that rigor- of a court with most bers seven-man decision, upon great dependence was made unquestionably ous dissents. While it is at the Con- proceedings Constitutional majority opinion rule that establishes peculiar to that state. vention which were jurisdiction, strength its the law in that difficulty Frankly, your writer has some jurisdiction persuasive authority in another that these consti- brushing aside the fact light the fact that must be examined North Dakota and tutional sections both it was far from unanimous and also dictates Wyoming, delegate well as Pennsylvania, as reasons for the some examination of the directly to the courts but power dissent, Pomeroy’s dissents. Mr. Justice assembly. Even if the con- legislative page 388 A.2d at makes an observation to mandate immu- stitution be assumed not applicable which the writer believes to our nity, delegation power is to no Mayle, case as well as in when he said: body legislature; it cer- other than to tainly is not to the courts. majori- . Thus I doubt that the speculation is sufficient ty’s historical re- place further considerable Appellants accepted change long what has State, Perkins v. upon liance the case of provi- of the constitutional construction N.E.2d 30 The consti- Ind. re- construction which has been sion —a quite dif- provision in that state is tutional upon by the other branches of Penn- lied Additionally, that find- from ours. ferent I that sylvania government. But believe theory that the ing solely upon the is based any is in event point proprietary discussion on this func- engaged in a state was irrelevant, tion, any it is well settled that a intention to opinion for and the denies sovereign immunity as such. pass upon undertake an examination of court should set- provision’s a constitutional historical However, of assist- we do find this case wording provision of ting only if the the construing provi- in our constitutional ance ambiguous.” itself is Supreme that the Court the extent sion to observed: of Indiana majority holding Mayle The basis of the unequivocal capsulized plain, in these There is no is summarized and “. . the in the Constitution statement words:

«03 really held that opinion court in that against immune Indiana shall be of sov- did not in itself establish damages; this a for imposing liability suits immunity but ereign said: from might inference be drawn only an this sec- however, section. As we read Consistent, the above our with framers of to us that essentially tion it occurs iden previous construction of that at common assumed the Constitution we hold that statutory language, tical and was from suit XX, law the immune merely for provides section 6 article legislature modify such authorized to suit.” Cal. legislative consent fit, may to the extent see 93, 359 at 461. Rptr. at P.2d special private that no acts or providing course, encompass This, not does for benefit of some passed acts were self-executing, was theory that clause not with dealing We here individual. with sees real conflict our the writer no and rather prohibition, but a constitutional expressed. thinking and the rule which has principle of common law with a company with Although this court law of common its roots in the ancient jurisdictions courts in other has many of the no King held ‘The can do England which inequity recognized the unfairness long not be sued and hence could wrong’3 and have been critical its this doctrine court of law. Blackstone’s Commen- any legislature those of our unlike application, Ed., Law, p. 111.” taries on The Gavit’s cited jurisdictions, including those many at 32. 251 N.E.2d these criti- not deaf to appellant, has clearly frames for quotation rather This implemented the constitution- but has cisms principle a constitution- this writer a tort- passed This body provisions. al may ours provision of the character of al provisions against suit with for claim’s act sovereign immunity, absolute not establish gover- State, by the which was vetoed but, recognized, as is much the existence the ses- session. nor after the 1976-77 to deter- the rule is left to bill, enacted a just past, sion what conditions mine what areas under gives rec- Laws being Ch. damages suf- it would consent suit for inequities of ognition to unfairness an individual and under which fered bill, signed This this doctrine. for might be had an individual recovery 6, 1979, makes governor on March by the wrongs of the State. the State for for suit provisions perimeters out the actions sets tortious Muskopf Corning Hospital The case of under procedures the liabilities and District, 211, Cal.Rptr. 55 Cal.2d be- This act should filed. which claims be (1961), probably most often P.2d 1, 1979. Since in July on comes effective support proposi- and utilized cited necessity Oroz, recognize we did supra, sovereign be all should tion that prospective gave action and legislative and that the courts have eliminated decision, we would be application That a consti- power so to do. case involves case, make this in order to in this forced provision not unlike ours: tutional “ accommodation, applica- give prospective brought against the State ‘Suits abrogate this doc- if we were to tion even as shall in such manner and in such courts ” sovereign immunity. trine XX, (Article sec by law.’ be directed great is of Constitution) to stare decisis 11 Cal. Adherence tion California inclined to and we are importance, Rptr. at 359 P.2d at 460. suit, exempt sovereign appears immuni- .A criticism of the It conception repeated any or ob ty philosophy not because of formal is often doctrine practical theory, logical immunity. It makes on the basis of solete ground the sole legal right as subject be no devas- that can man to a most convenient straw authority criticism; the law on your suggests that makes tating that writer ” right depends. . Kawan . . logic important which the basis thereof the real and most 353, 349, Polyblank, 27 U.S. explained v. 205 anakoa Mr. Justice Holmes: 526, (1907). 51 S.Ct. L.Ed. 834 804 holding it to the so essarily given be long-estab precedents

change a series as to all those cases 184, certainly be moot Am.Jur.2d, Courts, would pp. 20 lished. 1, 1979, July prior arise judicial re that would Without exercise 520-521. statute. area, its date of the the law would lose effective straint this stability certainty, which is the basis necessity of this clearly These obviate of a society keystone and the a well-ordered remove this power to testing its court’s system. This court has orderly stable and aside the rule to brush immunity and law, being heretofore observed setting aside well-estab stare decisis science, rule of requires that the developing juris rules in this long-followed lished Burns, rigid. Burns v. not be stare decisis Also, completely it allows us diction. 178, 183 (1950). 314, That Wyo. 67 224 P.2d powers separation of a concept honor own limitations when contain its case did legislature has settled because following with reference to observation citizens of this state. problem for the applicability was made: its case, in this for research the time available to do so or not is “. . . Whether involving similar factual only one case It would not always easily determined. But our attention. situation came to be clear permissible if to do so would Carmody, of Mr. Justice following comment power of legislation, and deliberate Val v. Ruidoso-Hondo in the case of Clark another de- delegated which has been 9, 168, 380 P.2d 170- Hospital, 72 N.M. ley government. . . .” partment of our logical reasonable and (1963)4 171 is both case: applicable to this well as here con- constitutional anything hardly legislature having can be construed as (the sidered no reason “We see delegation has) of the but a for the court taken the action that regulate the entire field and not power to rule of law that has been to reconsider a juris- an invitation to the courts to invade many years in this effective for so not-too-satisfactory experi- domain. diction. The jurisdictions which of those ence in most principle of the reasons for disre One attempted have to overrule and to garding the rule of stare decisis should make it by court decision doctrine existing prevent abrogate an rule is action on the sub- legislative obvious perpetration inequity. of an error or preferred solution.” ject is the 731, Ballance, 764, 7 229 N.C. 51 v. S.E.2d by the emphasized particularly This truth is 407, (1949); Pawley, Pawley A.L.R.2d 411 v. 1158, this court page where 1358, case of Oroz at Fla., 1369 28 A.L.R.2d So.2d noted: (1950); v. First Atlantic Na Morgenthaler Beach, Fla., Daytona

tional Bank of immunity, The removal of . . (1955); Austad 54 A.L.R.2d 353 however, govern- So.2d mean that a does not Austad, v. 2d 269 P.2d Utah for all harm that entity is liable mental ” (1954); A.L.R.2d 256 Carter-Jones Lumber from its activities. results Eblen, Ops. 167 Ohio Ohio Co. St. completely not be abol- Immunity should 147 N.E.2d 68 A.L.R.2d 285 units should not be ished. Governmental activi- damages or for all their liable for all abrogate refusal to this rule and Our Prosser, of the in his Handbook will ties. Mr. the rule of stare decisis follow instead Torts, quite it out well. Courts sets perpetuation of Law not and cannot result in doc- abrogate old and established legisla- should not unjust situation because be better if it would abrogate said trines of this character response. tive If we were to observed: legislature. Prosser doctrine, nec- done application would prospective view, not, diminish the directly in the writer’s as it does 4. This case was overruled insofar applicability words judiciary of these reasonableness held that the and not applies to disposal as it proper factual situation insofar to this was the forum for the immunity by here. the citation Hicks State, This N.M. 544 P.2d There remains the of whether now issue or less the outset it was more obvious “At governmental liability policy is- of the the automobile insurance vestige that some was, It for immunity by Wyo- retained. to the of must be sued Farm State State that either state example, coverage injuries unthinkable to sus- ming the [a] afforded municipality be a should Worthington Al- by [or] tained and Scott. wrong decision of its liable for a held of though issue is raised in the context the courts, of for an erroneous evaluation judgment in favor of summary the entered by a assessor. several of property tax complaint, Farm on its intervenor’s immunities, abrogating the decisions pertinent the correctness its resolution is to which was used reserved language there judgment on the State’s trial court’s might still be possibility dismiss, necessarily which found motion to immunity ‘legislative’ ‘judicial’ or to their on alternate claim appellants functions, or acts or omissions of as to by immunity had waived which were ‘dis- government employees the limits of State at least to the extent of (Bracketed mat- cretionary.’ .” coverage. liability its insurance automobile Prosser, Law of Torts supplied.) ter applica- predicated upon This claim is 1971). (4th p. Ed. § 1-35-102, W.S.1977, pro- tion of which Raper University in Awe v. of Mr. Justice vides: Wyo., P.2d 106-107 Wyoming, immunity governmental “The defense of observation, following

(1975), made the of extent the limits is waived to the of pertinent: which we most consider govern- by carried liability insurance such as the state “Until time to applies entity. This section mental system handling of adopts some uniform body in the any governmental agency or by sovereign either liability, state tort liability cover- securing state insurance coverage or limited immunity abrogation supplied.) age.” (Emphasis insurance, unwilling is to by the court at- Farm has issue policy hodge-podge a of rules now contribute to Endorsement, tached Basis Fleet a Blanket exceptions. What- hodge-podge with a to all respect with provides which insurance does, must ever that branch consideration in the licensed motor owned vehicles given to of insurance be the economics for name of the State appropriated funds.” premiums versus coverages the declarations. specified this can clearly These matter indicate for purposes limit The declarations to far better handled be designed the use coverage which the classify those areas in which carve out pleasure vehicle for motor owned shall be abolished the doctrine therein unless within business as defined be re- and those in which should areas that is rel- The section specified exception. If this not left hands tained. coverage is the appeal evant this would forced legislature, court clause, states: possible areas in which the settle the all sums “To of the insured pay on behalf case-by-case on a apply should not doctrine legally shall become which the insured unnecessary confusion and ex- with basis damages because obligated pay as For State. pense claimants per- injury by other “(A) bodily sustained reasons, court must sustain sons, and insofar as it held action of the trial court “(B) damage, property sovereign immunity that the defense of arising out by accident6 “caused protect from suit available to defendants use, including ownership, maintenance cases. each of three hos- holding county insurance aby of liability purchase codified 5. The statute effectively pital. v. Memorial Hospital this court Collins endorsement attached has also P.2d policy Sheridan Wyo., County, “occurrence” word broader involving substitutes in a case the rule applied 806 Practice, (1976 rev.). pri 7381

loading unloading, or of the owned motor (Emphasis supplied.) objective interpreting vehicle an mary insurance parties contract is to ascertain what 5017, Appellants, in cases 5016 and con- object reasonably intended as its and to negligence tend of the that State plain, ascribe to the terms used their ordi Highway alleged by Commission as nary customary meaning in order to respective complaints their involve causes parties. effectuate intent of action that arose out of the use of state- McKay Equitable Society v. Life Assurance vehicles, injuries owned motor and that the S., 166, (1966); Wyo., of U. 421 P.2d 168 sustained as a result of the accident were Company, Ostendorf v. Arrow Insurance coverage within the of this section of the 190, 491, (1970). 288 Minn. 182 N.W.2d 192 policy. pertinent allega- A review of the any ambiguities or When there are uncer complaints tions in little with these reveals language meaning tainties in the of the regard relationship, any, to the if between policy, they strictly in a must be con used resurfacing the use of the vehicles against strued the insurer who drafted the operation injuries Worthington and the Co., Hawkeye Casualty v. Nevertheless, contract. Wilson argument pos- Scott. 867, 141, (1950). Wyo. 67 215 P.2d 874-875 by appellants tulated to this court is that However, language if the is clear and un employees the failure of the to at State ambiguous, there is no room for the temporarily replace least the obliterated court to markings center line and shoulder and to resort to a strict construction post warnings insurer, proxi- policy of their absence was a and the insurance must be question. interpreted according ordinary mate cause of the accident in In- question meaning McKay sofar as this cause relates to the the usual of its terms. v. coverage insuring ques- S., under the Equitable Society supra clause in Assurance of U. tion, 168; we no find contention that there was at v. Aetna Life Addison Insurance negligence 948, involved in the Company, (1961); use of the vehi- Wyo., 358 P.2d 950 road, Co., cles in resurfacing of the but it is Coit v. Jefferson Life Ins. 28 Standard argued 163, (1946); there is sufficient causal rela- Cal.2d 168 P.2d 169-170 Os tionship between the use of the vehicles Company, tendorf Arrow su Insurance employees removing State’s pra, 182 N.W.2d at 192. markings injuries question. and the obligation give an Courts have a writ words, appellants asserting other practical, ten contract of insurance a rea when the use of the gives insured’s vehicle interpretation sonable and fair that is con rise to a highway condition on the which in apparent object sonant with the and intent accident, turn injury causes the sus- parties. Noyes v. Order of United tained as a result “arises out of” the use of Travelers, Commercial 125 Vt. 215 A.2d the insured’s vehicle. insuring 497 terms of the parties to an unambigu insurance con clause in are clear and tract, contract, any like object policy provide other are free to ous. The is to incorporate any injury therein whatever lawful coverage terms for or loss caused an desire, they and the courts are not liberty “arising ownership, out of the accident to rewrite policy guise under the of maintenance use” of vehi or State-owned judicial employed general pur construction. Farm for Mutual cles that are Company Insurance poses pleasure provi Farmers Insurance or business. This Group, Wyo., (1977); strictly 569 P.2d 1262 be so as to sion should not construed object, Rosenblum Life general v. Sun Assur. Co. of Cana thwart its Miles v. Continen da, 399, 405, 109 Wyo. Casualty Company, Wyo., 51 65 P.2d A.L.R. tal 386 P.2d (1963); (1937); Appleman, emphasized Insurance Law 722 and it must be requires expected

for The endorsement does not affect our considera- “accident” but either an presented repeated exposure event here. or a continuous or tion of the issue conditions, injury which causes loss. cases, only would arise in tort comprehensive general policy is not of use. Insurance contract, every con- arose out injury which covers or loss liability In Wyo- Royal which the America v. Company of North ceivable Thus, primary Cir., subjected. our ming may be 6th 429 F.2d demnity Company, with the much concerned duty is not so Indemnity Co. v. Ew (1970); National with ascertain- concept causation as it is (1964); A.2d ing, 235 Md. insured vehicles’ connection ing whether the supra, 160 A.2d at 353. Bergeron, Carter v. rise to the gave with the activities bring gen- those injuries injury were sufficient to determining whether In activities, negligence and the connected eral use, must demon the evidence arose out of therewith, which the within the risks for reasona it was the natural and strate that reasonably the contract contem- parties to consequence of the use of an incident or ble would covered. Lawver v. plated vehicle, being the causal connection insured 514, 408, 238 N.W.2d 518 Boling, 71 Wis.2d Indepen Associated reasonably apparent. (1976). that restrains a court It is this task Dealers, v. Mutual Insur dent Inc. Service construing liberally unreasonably from 179, Minn. 229 N.W.2d Companies, 304 ance permit contract to a strained an insurance Casualty Compa 516, (1975); Fidelity & 518 find interpretation in order to or unnatural Farm v. North Carolina ny of New York sub- innocent victims who are coverage for Company, 16 N.C. Insurance Bureau Mutual Otherwise, jects sympathy. of enormous 113, (1972), certio 118 App. 192 S.E.2d an insurer to a the effect would be to bind denied, 840 192 S.E.2d rari 282 N.C. contemplated and for risk that was not 2d, supra, Insurance (1972); 12 Couch on paid. D’Angelo v. which it was not Cornell injury 45:56, the was direct p. at 148. If § Co., 207 59 Wis.2d Paperboard Products or interven independent ly caused some (1973). 848 N.W.2d from, inde wholly disassociated ing cause previ appears to be no While there the use of the remote from pendent of or jurisdiction that have ous decisions in this automobile, held to injury cannot be the “arising out of the the words interpreted v. Utilities its use. arise out of Schmidt in the con ownership, maintenance or use” 184; Nor Co., supra, 182 S.W.2d Ins. liability insurance text of an automobile Compa Insurance Mutual gaard v. Nodak liti question frequently has been policy, (1972); 6B N.D., 875 201 N.W.2d ny, agreement general The cases are in gated. Ed., rev.). (Buckley 1979 4316 Appleman, § or relation must that a causal connection necessarily of the The resolution injury an accident or exist between particu degree upon the great a depends to use of an in ownership, maintenance or case. by each individual presented lar facts injury loss sus vehicle before the or sured Dealers, v. Mu Inc. Independent Associated within the risk tained can be considered supra; Companies, Insurance tual Service Annot., by the clause. Automobile covered Co., supra. Ins. v. Utilities Schmidt Risks, A.L.R.2d Liability 89 Insurance — any reveal did not research While our 2d, Insurance (1963); and 12 Couch on 153 identical to presenting circumstances cases (Anderson 1964). The words Ed. 45:56 that are case, two decisions we found broad, “arising out of use” Insurance v. Canal analogous. Tillman terms, and are comprehensive general and (1974), writ re Co., La.App., 305 So.2d from, grow originating understood to mean wrongful (La.1975), a fused, 307 So.2d the use of the ing flowing out of or that a few case, showed evidence death Co., Ins. v. Utilities automobile. Schmidt gravel had been accident hours before 181, 183-184, 353 Mo. S.W.2d trucks onto insured’s of the spilled from one Bergeron, 102 (1944); Carter v. A.L.R. 1088 500 to 600 for a distance highway 464, 160 89 A.L.R.2d N.H. A.2d high at three feet spillage The however, feet. language, does when occurred The accident its terminus. proximate of direct and require finding struck unit of a tractor-trailer or as the driver legal sense causation in strict vehicles, or that such use was a sub- gravel causing in his lane of traffic causing injuries. unit to cross over to the other lane and to stantial factor pickup truck. injuries crash head-on into Both plaintiff’s may have occupants pickup were killed. One of by virtue of ina- caused defendant's] [the questions raised in that case was wheth- bility stop sign seen the because to have coverage involving opera- er insurance it was covered with snow and ice. How- tion gravel provid- and use of the truck was ever, placed the use of the vehicles which comprehensive general liability ed sign the ice and snow over the was not the automobile fea- injuries. The cause the cause policy. ture of Louisiana Court of county’s have been in the action of the Appeals coverage affirmed the denial of employees placing the snow and ice ” liability provision, under the automobile sign removing it. over the or in not holding intervening that the act of the driv- (Bracketed emphasis sup- matter and er, apart operation from the and use of the Id., at 643. plied.) 70 N.W.2d truck, gravel set in motion the harm that though Both cases illustrate that even upon plaintiff. was visited the The court vehicle antecedent use of insured found that a damages cause of action for create a condition that later results in negligence leaving existed in the driver’s harm, necessarily suf- this fact alone is not spilled gravel highway the the on unattend- within the cover- bring ficient to the harm failing ed and mark the hazard or warn especially when age insuring clause — motoring public the but concluded intervening negli- reveal acts of the facts there was no connection between the use of clearly from the use of gence disassociated gravel the truck which the spilled was signifi- the The distinction is automobile. protect motoring and the failure to the since, cant to this case unlike the conditions public. Raube, supra, created in Tillman and there Christenson, Raube v. 270 Wis. patently dangerous was no hazard (1955), presented question N.W.2d 639 the condition created in connection with the use county’s of whether a automobile allegation of the vehicles. There was no policy, coverage which afforded for acci- the acts connected with the obliter- arising automobiles, dents out of the use of ation of the center line and shoulder mark- purpose trucks and tractors for the of snow ings, necessary which are incidents of road removal, covered an intersectional collision repairs, proximate were a cause of the acci- allegedly by inability caused a motorist’s Instead, alleged dent. it was that State stop sign. see a It alleged was the employees negligently protect omitted to county highway and its commissioner were motoring public the from whatever latent liable because three weeks before the acci- repair a result of the hazards existed as highway dent its negli- maintenance crew operation replacement of mark- the —-the gently stop sign covered the with ice and adequate ings, taking and the measures snow, which created a condition that was a to warn motorists of the hazard. When proximate reject- cause of the accident. law, light applicable the case viewed ing inju- the plaintiff’s contention that her by interpretation appellants asserted vehicles, county ries arose out of the use of impractical unreasonable. the Supreme Court of Wisconsin said: position unique is indeed asserted perceive any . We fail to rea- upon because it is based the before-men-

sonable between connection the use of upon any definite tioned omissions and any projected vehicles which the ice and actions, rather failure affirmative vicinity sign snow and the employees certain part on the of some to do injuries plaintiff. sustained suggestion things. certainly There is no reasonably use of the vehicles was not alleged omissions can arise from incident with the colli- that these or associated injuries vehicle. All the cita- any sion. It cannot be said that the use of motor proximate appellants were the result of the use of have been read and ex- tions of to suit can be five consent before the State great many with a other cases along amined damages. these observa- any sued for Based on has writer found and in no case tions, opinion up that it is so concludes sustained under causes claim for loss court-—-to deter- or tenuous. remote —not recog- what areas conditions are mine We hold that the trial court correct purposes of a to sue. nized for consent the injuries suffered ly found agree. I cannot Worthington and were not Scott .within reasonably by the insur contemplated risks writing majority of the Had I been for a Farm and the ance contract between State court, Roy Hjorth have returned to I would Wyoming. The evidence here sim University, Wyo. v. Trustees alty Co. injuries were ply fails to disclose that their this court said 222 P. 9 where the natural reasonable incident self-executing is not Article Section repairing vehicles in use of State-owned legisla until the is authorized and no suit surmised, previously As we have highway. to such a ture makes and consents negli alleged several acts of suit, have erro I would corrected that might to have fairly be said gence, holding. A construction proper neous proximate contributing cause of 8,2 merely Article would be that Section accident, clearly remote but which were provide proce authorizes scope from the use of vehicles. Minge, if it so for suit desires. See dures insuring type afforded coverage II, VII, Immunity Vol. Governmental — Part point, at some must end clause Review, Land and Water Law No. well-beyond represents point and this case reasonably the that must be drawn. line plain language the of Arti- According to Dealers, Independent Inc. v. Mu Associated 1, 8, provision parsed can be cle Section supra. Companies, tual Service Insurance as follows: Affirmed. against the may brought be 1. Suit state, McCLINTOCK, J., re- concurred in the may estab- legislature the 2. Provided sult. such venue for procedures lish ROSE, J., dissenting opinion. a filed suits. Justice, ROSE, dissenting. of this room for construction There is no can be simply says suits making majority opinion disclaims —it plainly it the brought against any as whether determination to other (and not some statutory legislature the immunity part gives of law our 8-3-101, power to estab- government) 8-1- the branch of § virtue of W.S.1977 § [now a must do 101, W.S.1977, and venue. One August Replacement].1 procedures lish implying conclude that deci- deal of to entirely principles great It relies on of stare 8, legisla- to the 1, provision gives and a view that Article Section constitutional sis of Constitution, the kinds legisla- power a to determine Wyoming requires ture the Henry Eighth) 8-1-101, thirty-seventh 8-3-101, chapter ninth 1. Section [now W.S.1977 W.S.1977, pro- August Replacement], general not which are of nature England, in of decision vides: are the rule local “Adoption with the not when inconsistent common law. this state thereof, England of full as “The common law as modified and are considered laws authority.” decisions, by judicial repealed by legislative is of far as the same so force until inapplicable, general all nature and 8, 1, part pertinent Section of Article declaratory made 2. acts or statutes remedial Wyoming, of, supply is: of the the Constitution or to the defects aid year prior law the fourth common brought against may the . Suits be (excepting section the First the second James courts as in such in such manner and state Elizabeth, chapter forty-third of the sixth may legislature by law direct.” the eighth chapter Elizabeth and the of thirteenth See, also, may brought. Hall, cases in which suit be Such State of Nevada v. 440 U.S. rise to implication gives the “consent-to- 1182, S.Ct. 59 L.Ed.2d 416 me, philosophy. implica- suit” For such an Hall, the State of Nevada v. United therefore, am, improper, tion is and I able Supreme princi- States Court described the to distinguish language Mayle the found in ple English as rooted in the structure of the Pennsylvania Department Highways, system feudal and based on the fiction that 479 Pa. 388 A.2d 709 from Arti- King wrong. the could do no The fiction that, cle Mayle holds since the Section rejected, the structural basis for Pennsylvania Constitution is neutral on principle by explaining was retained prohibition both the establishment or of im- right gov- meant sovereignty that “the munity liability, from it follows that ern,” necessarily encompassed legislature may choose cases in which the right to determine what cases In Mayle, state should be immune. brought sovereign’s own courts. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was concerned repeated Court also the words of Justice language with constitutional which included (set majority opinion, Holmes out in the cases,” the words justify- “and such thus 3), immunity footnote that from suit rests ing the conclusion reached the court.3 logical ground on the “that there can be no say Constitution does not legal right authority as How, then, “and in such cases.” can it be right depends.” makes law on legislature power said that has under Article “to Section determine what My argument response to this is that it is areas and under what conditions it would only deny power correct if we suit,” consent the majority opinion abrogate immunity court to the doctrine of holds? deny from and if we the reasonable I would have held Article Section construction of Article Section as con- immunity does not establish from liabili- stituting grant people an affirmative ty, nor does allow the to estab- right to sue the state and a limitation immunity indirectly by lish such controlling ability modify on legislature’s such a Rather, the State’s consent to suit. right. say To suit is provision expressly provides for suits part sovereignty an inherent aof state’s e., against the State —i. it makes such suits say people, formulating not to permissible grants —and constitution, their state’s could not have powers procedures narrow to establish principle. only question modified that The Any attempt go beyond venue. the es- so, they pres- is whether did or if there is procedures tablishment of and venue is un- ently holding a reasonable basis for that and, indeed, authorized of violative Article they this what did. is Section ascertaining way precisely We have no of I responded only argu- would have the framers’ actual intent —the debate of validly ment that can be in opposition made being the constitutional convention silent my position expressed as above as fol- they on the matter —but we can assume off, cognizant lows: First I am of the con- sovereign were that the was immune aware cept says: law, consent to suit. In at common absent elementary “. . The principle . assumption, in 23 support of this it is said that a cannot be sued in its own English Encyclopedia of Law American and priv- courts without its consent. This is a ” (Williams 1893): 86 ed. ilege sovereignty. of . . Railroad provision that suit Tennessee, 337, 339, “A constitutional Company v. 101 U.S. (1879). brought against the state in such may 25 L.Ed. 960 be I, Legislature pertinent part courts and in such cases as the may by 3. The of article section of Pennsylvania [Emphasis supplied] the Constitution of is: law direct.” may brought against “. . Suits manner, Commonwealth in in such such sovereign based on common-law notions of thereof legislature manner as the act; direct, compel body ty directives of the constitu does not and not on the passed agreeably analysis until a statute has been Relying tion. on the tendered retains its provision, to such the state Roberts, Mayle Pennsylvania Justice in v. immunity from suit.” Department Highways, supra, A.2d of at it can be said that there is no state court deci The editor cites several 717 — provisions like Arti sions, historical evidence adoption Wyo pre-dating the Constitution, represented which are cle were added to make sover ming Section See, Turner v. supportive eign immunity of this doctrine. the constitutional rule unless State, (1871), People The 27 Ark. 337 legislature otherwise. decides (1856); Talmage, of Cal. reported important It is to note that no Stout, 7 Neb. Nebraska and Wyoming attempts to or as- case discuss Ry. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Co. certain the intentions of the framers State, v. The 53 Wis. 10 N.W. 560 Wyoming enacting Constitution in Article however, cases, (1881). in Each of Hjorth Royal- The decision in Section 8. of a interpretation volves the constitution University, supra, ty Co. v. Trustees of as- in providing against for suits the state such interpretation of an propriety sumes the manner and in such courts as the Article to the effect that Section shall direct law. The Consti privileged simply legis- because the state is legislature may by law says, tution “as provision for suits lature had not made case cited the editor direct.” The one so, doing the court against the state. point directly which is con —in general Cy- rule stated in 36 relies on the question stitutional is identical (1910). clopedia of Law & Procedure 913 Register to ours — is Williams v. The Research, cited, previously discloses Tennessee, (Cooke) West 3 Tenn. rules were based on cases general such doc- The Williams decision indicated the which, turn, were rooted in the common- separation powers precluded trine sovereignty. law notions remedy by way providing court from no evidence that the consti- there is Since legitimate for a claim when the mandamus intended immu- tutional framers recognition prohibited had consent, legislative to be nity, absent yet the claim in and had not acted rule, holding realizing that decisions so pursuant provision con- to the constitutional provi- were based not on the constitutional cerning suits the state. This was reading by the courts of sion itself but on true, court, according since notions into the constitutional common-law general principles, . On is, my judgment, a firm provisions, there citizen, subject, idea of an individual concluding that such former inter- basis for act, sovereign to do an compelling the Additionally, pretations were erroneous. every sovereignty. repugnant idea interpretations were since these erroneous (Cooke), 164-165. .” 3 Tenn. by people by the court —and made indicate, however, per- that a The court did to power courts have the of the state —the position in of the claimant could son the error. correct equity. obtain redress in a court of this historical mis- suggest I correction decisions cited pre-1890 None of interpretation pointing out that an take except the re- provide a above rationale — 1, 8, grants Article Section which holds that argument in- pugnance-to-sovereignty —for state, to sue the is right people provision in terpreting the constitutional hostility with this nation’s more consistent being effect until the question as without sovereign that power of the to the absolute differently, legislature acts. Stated period. War Revolutionary existed at the decisions determined that early that, proceed to an we can then Having said legislative actions to immunity, absent some 1, rule, of Article Section 8. interpretation contrary, was the but this rule was pre- liability through the correction previously expressed the ultimate I have 1, like Provisions I make of Article vious erroneous decisions. would interpretation 8, 8, namely merely grants 1, always up to thrown Section are Article Section authority pre- the narrow to for retention justification last frantic as the procedures scribe the for and venue of suits up By pointing the errone- of the doctrine. against the state. I have reached this con- of those decisions which ous nature clusion for these several reasons. decisis, I of stare would raised name have, manner, overcome this barrier 1, plain language of Article The Section abrogated the doctrine of State sover- legisla- expressly grant does not to immunity Wyoming. eign in what cases power ture the determine (as brought against suit the state is Dakota).4 Pennsylvania

true in and North possesses of this state all

legislative authority except as restricted or Federal Constitutions either State implication. v.

expressly or clear 199, 222-223, Snyder, Wyo. 212 P. CROSSAN, (Defendant Appellant R. N. true, according This is to Jus- Third-Party Plaintiff), Potter, though recognized tice even he v. Snyder that: “ IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPO indepen- government ‘A state RATION, Wyoming Corporation, existence, representing the sover- dent Appellee (Plaintiff), people. power eignty Legislature power is the of that sover- and, eignty, general proposition, aas INDUSTRIES, INC., VALMONT supreme respects in all and unlimited in Corporation, Appellee Nebraska pertaining legitimate legis- all matters ’ ” Defendant). (Third-Party Snyder, lation. 199, 230, 771, 782, Wyo. citing City 212 P. Inc., Supply, Green Circle a North Dakota Pace, Va. Richmond v. Brown, Corporation, C. H. d/b/a H.C. S.E. 647. Co., Tritt, (Third-Par David Brown my Stephen- As I have noted in dissent Defendants). ty Mitchell, Wyo., son v. 569 P.2d at 108 No. 5170. grant our state constitution is not a delegation power, but is a limitation Supreme Wyoming. Court of would, therefore, power. or restriction of I Aug. 1979. 8, clearly implies hold that Article Section legislature’s power a restriction on the Rehearing Denied Oct. sue, amenability to modify the State’s any legislation goes beyond pro- illegitimate legislation. venue is cedures or

Summary: impact of the above discussion is justifiable

far-reaching, but I submit it as a

way give meaning its true to Article judiciary’s inherent

Section and to the

power abrogate sovereign immunity (1956, University Wyoming Wyoming 4. At least one student of the Consti- Constitution true, signifi- thesis). opined Article If this is some tutional Convention has Master’s given dele- to the intentional Section was modeled after the North Dakota cance should be Prien, provision. Background “and in such cases.” tion of the words

Case Details

Case Name: Worthington v. State

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 18, 1979

Citation: 598 P.2d 796

Docket Number: 5016-5018

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.