Case Title: Boyd v. Nation

Citation: 

Docket Number: 95-112

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
Boyd v. Nation1996 WY 2909 P.2d 323Case Number: 95-112Decided: 01/05/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
  

Maurice F. BOYD, Appellant 
(Plaintiff)

v. 

Lois 
Ann NATION, Appellee (Defendant)

 

Appeal from The District Court, Natrona County, Harry 
E. Leimback, J.

Maurice F. Boyd, Riverton, appellant 
prose.

Kathleen J. Doyle of Schwartz, Bon, Walker 
& Studer, LLC, Casper, for appellee.

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

GOLDEN, Chief Justice.

[¶1]      Maurice F. Boyd 
(Boyd) brought a negligence action against the mayor of Evansville, Lois Ann 
Nation (Nation), for injuries suffered while he attempted to repair a water line 
she ordered him to repair. Boyd appeals the district court's order granting 
Nation's motion for summary judgment, which was based on governmental immunity 
of public employees pursuant to the Wyoming Governmental Claims 
Act.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUES

[¶3]      Appellant Boyd 
originally presented the issue as:

The district court 
erred in not allowing this case to proceed to trial in order for a jury to 
decide whether there was an exception to governmental 
immunity.

[¶4]      Appellee Nation 
presented the following issues:

1. Whether a town 
employee can sue the elected Mayor of a town for injuries he received on the 
job.

(A) Whether Lois 
Nation, as the Mayor of Evansville, is immune from suit pursuant to the Wyoming 
Governmental Claims Act.

(B) Whether Lois 
Nation is immune from suit pursuant to the Wyoming Worker's Compensation 
Act.

2. Whether the 
plaintiff is estopped from suing the Mayor based upon a settlement agreement he 
entered into with the town of Evansville.

[¶5]      In his reply 
brief, Boyd echoes the issues presented by Nation.

FACTS

[¶6]      On July 3, 1988, 
a water line broke in the town of Evansville. Boyd, the public works director 
for Evansville, was injured while attempting to repair the broken water line 
pursuant to an order from Nation. Boyd claims Nation was aware of the danger of 
an attempted repair, but she negligently issued the order to repair the water 
line anyway. Boyd received worker's compensation benefits for his injuries 
pursuant to a settlement dated June 3, 1991. On May 24, 1993, Boyd filed a 
personal injury action against Nation, apparently alleging negligence. Nation 
filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the statute of limitations for the 
claim had run. Boyd filed an amended complaint, alleging that Nation was the 
mayor of Evansville and, as such, was a co-employee of Boyd. Boyd also alleged 
that he had complied with the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act and properly made 
demand on the Town of Evansville for payment of his claims. The district court's 
order dismissing Boyd's original complaint and allowing Boyd to amend his 
complaint to "incorporate specific allegations of the conduct of the defendant 
as a co-employee with respect to the plaintiff's injuries" did not address 
Nation's statute of limitations concerns.

[¶7]      Nation later 
filed a motion for summary judgment. After briefing by the parties and a 
hearing, the district court granted Nation's motion for summary judgment. The 
district court held that a government "co-employee can sue under the culpable 
negligence standard of the worker's compensation statutes only if the action 
falls within a waiver of immunity." Opining that Harbel v. Wintermute, 883 P.2d 359 (Wyo. 1994), is directly on point, the court found that Nation was not "in 
operation of" a public utility when Boyd was injured, and Nation was immune from 
suit under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act.

DISCUSSION

[¶8]      In United Mine 
Workers of America, Local 1972 v. Decker Coal Co., 774 P.2d 1274 (Wyo. 1989), we 
held:

It is fundamental, 
if not axiomatic, that, before a court can render any decision or order having 
any effect in any case or matter, it must have subject matter jurisdiction. 
Jurisdiction is essential to the exercise of judicial power. Unless the court 
has jurisdiction, it lacks any authority to proceed, and any decision, judgment, 
or other order is, as a matter of law, utterly void and of no effect for any 
purpose. Subject matter jurisdiction, like jurisdiction over the person, is not 
a subject of judicial discretion. There is a difference, however, because the 
lack of jurisdiction over the person can be waived, but lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction cannot be. Subject matter jurisdiction either exists or it does not 
and, before proceeding to a disposition on the merits, a court should be 
satisfied that it does have the requisite jurisdiction. (Citations 
omitted).

Id. at 1283-84 (quoting Matter of Contempt 
Order (Anderson), 765 P.2d 933, 936 (Wyo. 1988)). It is apparent from the record 
that the district court in this case was not presented with information 
sufficient to establish that it had the requisite jurisdiction to hear this 
case. Therefore, "we are compelled to discuss the issue of subject matter 
jurisdiction . . . even though this issue was raised neither below nor here by 
the parties." United Mine Workers at 1283 (citing Dee v. Laramie County, 666 P.2d 957 (Wyo. 1983); and Matter of Estate of Harrington, 648 P.2d 556, 559 
(Wyo. 1982)).

[¶9]      Boyd's claim 
appears to be premised on WYO. STAT. § 27-14-104,1 which allows a person whose injury is covered by the 
Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act to recover from a co-employee who caused the 
injury, and WYO. STAT. § 1-39-108 (1988),2 which 
waives governmental immunity for a public employee who is in operation of a 
public utility or service. As such, we must be satisfied the jurisdictional 
requirements of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act and the Wyoming 
Governmental Claims Act have been met.

[¶10]   WYO. STAT. § 27-14-1053 requires that when an injured employee who is 
covered by the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act wishes to pursue his remedies 
at law by filing a lawsuit, he must serve both the director of the Department of 
Employment and the attorney general with copies of the complaint. Makinen v. PM 
P.C., 893 P.2d 1149, 1152 (Wyo. 1995). We are unable to find any evidence in the 
record which satisfies us that Boyd complied with the service requirement of 
WYO. STAT. § 27-14-105. Accordingly, we hold the district court did not have 
jurisdiction over the case at the time Nation filed her motion for summary 
judgment. Makinen, 893 P.2d  at 1152-53.

[¶11]   In Makinen, we noted that the 
district court's lack of jurisdiction could effectively dispose of the appeal. 
However, since we assumed that the district court would dismiss the case without 
prejudice, we considered the other issues on appeal. Makinen, 893 P.2d  at 1153. 
Unfortunately, in the case before us, Boyd has not presented this court with 
pertinent authority or cogent argument.

[I]n the absence of 
the citation of pertinent authority or cogent argument, we will not afford 
relief to an appellant. While it is permissible under our system for litigants 
to represent themselves, such litigants do not receive any special benefit in 
the examination of papers that are presented to this court including 
briefs.

Amrein v. Wyoming Livestock Bd., 851 P.2d 769, 772 (Wyo. 1993) (citations omitted). See also Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 891 P.2d 85, 87 (Wyo. 1995); E.C. Cates Agency, Inc. v. Barbe, 764 P.2d 274, 276 (Wyo. 
1988). We are not inclined to consider the waiver of immunity issues presented 
without the benefit of pertinent legal authority or cogent argument and affirm 
the district court's order granting Nation's motion for summary judgment, 
although not necessarily pursuant to the reasoning provided by the district 
court's decision letter.

[¶12]   Finally, in Amrein we held that an 
allegation attempting to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court pursuant 
to the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act "must encompass a statement of the date 
the claim was filed to demonstrate the filing of the claim within two years of 
the date of the `alleged act, error or omission.'" Amrein, 851 P.2d  at 771; see 
also WYO. STAT. § 1-39-113 (1988). We then acknowledged that the trial court 
could have entered a dismissal without prejudice, but held that it was clear 
from the record that it would be impossible to present the requisite allegations 
and affirmed the order of dismissal. Amrein, 851 P.2d  at 771-72. Boyd failed to 
state the date his claim was filed with the Town of Evansville, therefore his 
complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to allege the jurisdiction of the 
court with specificity. Id. Boyd was injured on July 3, 1988, more than four 
years before he filed his claim against Nation with the Town of Evansville on 
May 12, 1993. It is clear from the record that Boyd can not possibly present an 
allegation that he filed his statement of claim with the Town of Evansville 
within the requisite two-year statute of limitations. Therefore, we affirm the 
order granting summary judgment in favor of Nation.

CONCLUSION

[¶13]   The district court did not have 
jurisdiction over this case under either the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act or 
the Worker's Compensation Act. Even if the district court was inclined to 
dismiss the complaint without prejudice, the applicable statute of limitations 
bars the action. Finally, Boyd failed to present pertinent authority or cogent 
legal argument.

[¶14]   We affirm.

Footnotes

1 When 
Boyd sustained his injuries in 1988, WYO. STAT. § 27-14-104(a) 
provided:

The 
rights and remedies provided in this act for an employee and his dependents for 
injuries incurred in extrahazardous employments are in lieu of all other rights 
and remedies against any employer making contributions required by this act, or 
his employees acting within the scope of their employment, but do not supersede 
any rights and remedies available to an employee and his dependents against any 
other person.

1986 Wyo.Spec.Sess.Laws Ch. 3 § 
3.

2 WYO. 
STAT. § 1-39-108(a) provides:

A 
governmental entity is liable for damages resulting from bodily injury, wrongful 
death or property damage caused by the negligence of public employees while 
acting within the scope of their duties in the operation of public utilities and 
services including gas, electricity, water, solid or liquid waste collection or 
disposal, heating and ground transportation.

3 In 1988, 
WYO. STAT. § 27-14-105 stated, in pertinent part:

(a) If 
an employee covered by this act receives an injury under circumstances creating 
a legal liability in some person other than the employer to pay damages, the 
employee if engaged in work for his employer at the time of the injury is not 
deprived of any compensation to which he is entitled under this act. He may also 
pursue his remedy at law against the third party or the coemployee to the extent 
permitted by W.S. 27-14-104(a). . . .

(b) 
The director and the attorney general shall be served by certified mail return 
receipt requested with a copy of the complaint filed in any suit initiated 
pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. Service of the complaint on the 
director and attorney general is a jurisdictional requirement in order to 
maintain the suit. . . .

WYO. STAT. § 27-14-105 (1991).