Case Title: Lane v. Yearsley

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Lane v. Yearsley1997 WY 68938 P.2d 858Case Number: 96-261Decided: 06/06/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

JAMES CONLEY LANE and JERI E. 
LANE

as 
Co-Administrators of the Estate of Conley Warren Lane, Deceased, 

Appellants(Plaintiffs), 

v. 

DAVID YEARSLEY, 

Appellee(Defendant).

Appeal from the District Court, Teton 
County

The Honorable D. Terry Rogers, 
Judge

Representing 
Appellant:

Ken M. McLaughlin, 
Pinedale.

Representing 
Appellee:

Timothy J. Bommer, 
Jackson.

Before TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, 
GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.

MACY, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellants James 
and Jeri Lane, as the co-administrators of the estate of their son, Conley Lane 
(Conley), appeal from the trial court's judgment which was entered after the 
jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee David 
Yearsley.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUES

[¶3]      The Lanes present 
three issues for our review:

I. Did the district 
court err in denying [the] appellants' motion for a new 
trial?

II. Should [the] 
jury's verdict be set aside as being contrary to the great weight of the 
evidence?

III. Did the 
district court err in refusing to admit testimony concerning the grief 
experienced by the appellants?

FACTS

[¶4]      This case 
involves an automobile accident which occurred on December 11, 1992. Yearsley, 
who had three passengers with him, was driving his pickup on the road between 
Teton Village and Jackson. John Sutherland was driving his Ford Bronco in the 
opposite direction on the same road, and Conley was a passenger in that vehicle. 
Sutherland lost control of his vehicle, and the vehicle spun clockwise into 
Yearsley's lane of travel, colliding with Yearsley's vehicle. Sutherland and 
Conley were killed in the accident, and Yearsley and the passengers in his 
vehicle were injured.

[¶5]      On December 6, 
1994, the Lanes filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Sutherland's estate, 
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., and Yearsley. The estate and the 
insurance company were dismissed from the action after they settled with the 
Lanes. A jury trial was held to consider the Lanes' claims against Yearsley. The 
jury found that Sutherland was one hundred percent at fault in the accident and 
that Yearsley was zero percent at fault. The jury also determined that the Lanes 
did not suffer any damages as a result of the accident. The trial court modified 
the verdict to include a finding that the Lanes suffered damages in the amount 
of the expenses which they had incurred for Conley's funeral because the parties 
had stipulated to those damages. The Lanes appealed to this Court after the 
trial court entered a judgment on the amended jury 
verdict.

DISCUSSION

[¶6]      We will first 
consider the issue of whether sufficient evidence supported the jury's 
determination that Yearsley was not at fault in the accident. If sufficient 
evidence supported the jury's verdict, the remainder of the Lanes' issues are 
moot.

 

[¶7]      The Lanes contend 
that the jury's determination was against the great weight of the evidence. In 
addressing their contention, we apply our traditional standard for reviewing 
claims that sufficient evidence was not presented at the trial to support the 
jury's verdict.

On review, this 
court assumes that the evidence in favor of the successful party is true. We 
leave out of consideration entirely the evidence presented by the unsuccessful 
party that conflicts with the evidence of the successful party, and we afford to 
the evidence of the successful party every favorable inference that may be 
reasonably and fairly drawn from it.

Kadrmas v. Valley West Homeowner's 
Association, 848 P.2d 826, 828 (Wyo. 
1993) (citation omitted). See also Thunder Hawk By and Through Jensen v. 
Union Pacific Railroad Company, 891 P.2d 773, 784 (Wyo. 
1995).

[¶8]      The Lanes 
premised their wrongful death claim on their assertions that Yearsley was 
negligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident which 
killed their son. In order to prevail on a negligence cause of action, the 
plaintiffs have to prove all the necessary elements including "(1) a duty, (2) a 
violation thereof, (3) which violation is the proximate cause of, (4) injury to 
the plaintiff." Vasquez By and Through Vasquez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 
913 P.2d 441, 443 (Wyo. 1996).

[¶9]      The evidence 
which was presented at the trial established that the road was very slick on the 
night of the accident. The posted speed limit in the area where the accident 
occurred was forty-five miles per hour. Yearsley was driving at a speed of 
between forty-five and fifty-six miles per hour, and Sutherland was traveling at 
a rate of speed which was possibly as high as sixty-nine miles per hour. 
Yearsley and Sutherland had both been drinking alcoholic 
beverages.

[¶10]   Robert Baldwin, a Wyoming highway 
patrolman, investigated the accident and testified at the trial. He stated that, 
in his opinion, excessive speed and alcohol consumption by both drivers and the 
road conditions were factors which contributed to the accident. The officer 
opined, however, that the predominant cause of the accident was Sutherland 
losing control of his vehicle and crossing over into Yearsley's lane of traffic. 
He said that no evidence indicated that Yearsley lost control of his vehicle 
prior to the impact. Officer Baldwin estimated that two and one-half seconds 
elapsed between the time when Sutherland lost control of his vehicle and the 
time when the impact occurred. James Wilson, who was Officer Baldwin's 
supervisor, also testified at the trial. He generally concurred with Officer 
Baldwin's opinions as to the causes of the accident.

[¶11]   John Daily, a patrol sergeant with 
the Teton County sheriff's office, investigated the accident and testified at 
the trial because he was experienced in reconstructing automobile accidents. 
Sergeant Daily stated that both vehicles were traveling at speeds which were 
higher than the posted speed limit. The sergeant concluded that Sutherland's 
excessive speed was the primary cause of the accident. He stated that, taking 
normal perception and reaction times into consideration, Yearsley could not have 
done anything to avoid the collision.

[¶12]   The Lanes rely on the evidence 
which showed that the road conditions were poor, that Yearsley was traveling at 
a speed which was higher than the posted speed limit, and that Yearsley had been 
drinking in arguing that the jury's determination was against the great weight 
of the evidence. In support of their contention, they point to the police 
officers' testimony which indicated that both drivers' consumption of alcohol 
and their excessive speeds were factors which contributed to the 
accident.

[¶13]   When we view the evidence in the 
light most favorable to Yearsley, we must conclude that sufficient evidence 
supported the jury's finding that Yearsley was not at fault in the accident. The 
jury could have reasonably concluded that, regardless of the fact that Yearsley 
had been drinking and was driving at a speed in excess of the legal limit, his 
acts were not the proximate cause of the accident. Officers Baldwin and Wilson 
agreed that the primary cause of the accident was Sutherland losing control of 
his vehicle and entering into Yearsley's lane of traffic. Sergeant Daily 
testified similarly, stating that the principal cause of the accident was 
Sutherland's excessive speed. The sergeant also stated that Yearsley could not 
have avoided the collision. That testimony was consistent with Yearsley's 
statement that he did not have time to take evasive action to avoid hitting 
Sutherland's vehicle. Yearsley's actions were not, therefore, the proximate 
cause of the accident.

[¶14]   The Lanes were required to prove 
each essential element of their negligence cause of action. Because they failed 
to prove causation, the jury was not mistaken when it determined that Yearsley 
was not at fault. Since sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict, the 
trial court did not err by refusing to grant the Lanes' motion for a new trial, 
and any error which may have been committed by the trial court when it refused 
to admit evidence concerning the Lanes' damages was irrelevant. Our ruling that 
sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict is 
dispositive.

[¶15]   
Affirmed.