Case Title: CITY OF TORRINGTON V. BOB COTTIER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 05-267

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
CITY OF TORRINGTON V. BOB COTTIER2006 WY 145145 P.3d 1274Case Number: 05-267Decided: 11/09/2006
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
CITY OF TORRINGTON,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
BOB COTTIER,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal from the 
DistrictCourtofGoshenCounty

The Honorable Keith G. 
Kautz, Judge

 
 
Representing Appellant:

Loyd E. Smith, of Murane & Bostwick, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing Appellee:

Michael E. Warren, of Sawyer & Warren, P.C., 
Torrington, Wyoming.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL*, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
* Chief 
Justice at time of oral argument.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Mr. Cottier 
obtained a judgment against the City of Torrington ("City") after his rental property 
was damaged by the backup of raw sewage.  
The City appeals claiming immunity under the Wyoming Governmental Claims 
Act.  We 
affirm.

 
 

ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      The City presents 
one issue for review:

 
 
Whether the waiver of 
governmental immunity for "operation" of public utilities found in W.S. § 
1-39-108(a) extends to "maintenance" of public utilities?

 
 
Mr. Cottier states the 
issue as:  

 
 
Does the waiver of 
governmental immunity for the operation of a sewer line, as set forth in W.S. § 
1-39-108(a), include the type of maintenance of that line which was involved in 
this case?

            

FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      On February 25, 
2004, sewage backed up into Mr. Cottier's rental property in Torrington, Wyoming causing damage to his property.  Investigation determined that tree roots 
in the main sewer line caused the back up.  
Mr. Cottier filed a formal claim with the City in an attempt to recover 
damages.1  The City denied the claim.  Mr. Cottier then initiated this 
litigation by filing his complaint on June 29, 2004.  He claimed the damage to his property 
was caused by the City's negligence.  
The City denied negligence and filed a motion for summary judgment 
asserting, among other things, that Mr. Cottier's claims were precluded by 
governmental immunity.  The City 
contended that the waiver of immunity contained in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-108(a) 
applies only to the "operation" of the sewer system and not for negligence in 
the "maintenance" of that system.  
The district court denied the motion as it related to the immunity claim 
reasoning as follows:

 
 
The Court recognizes that 
some "maintenance" activities for a sewer system may be different from 
"operation" of that sewer system.  
For example, replacement of pipelines might be maintenance, but 
not operation.  Perhaps the 
legislature intended to preserve governmental immunity for those actions.  However, other activities are both part 
of operating and maintaining the sewer system.  Checking for and removing tree roots and 
other obstacles is such an activity.  
To "operate" the sewer system the [City] must check for and remove 
obstacles from the sewer lines.  

 
 
(Emphasis in 
original.)  

 
 
[¶4]      A bench trial was 
held.  The district court found that 
the City had knowledge of obstructions in the main line near the Cottier 
property in 2002 and 2003.  
According to the district court:

 
 
10.       After 
finding an obstruction a block south of where the Cottier home is located, in 
the summer of 2003, and because of the backup and the sediment that can be 
caused from a blockage, it would have been reasonable for the [City], pursuant 
to its own procedure, to check for obstructions a block north as well. 

 
 
11.       Tree roots 
were the cause of the obstruction on July 19, 2002; and those same roots were 
the cause of the backup on February 25, 2004, one year and seven months 
later.  If those roots had been monitored with periodic jet rodding, the 
blockage and backup on February 25, 2004, would not have occurred. 

 
 
The district court 
determined the City's negligence caused damage to Mr. Cottier's property and 
entered judgment against the City.  
This appeal followed.  

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 
[¶5]      Resolution of the 
issue presented in this appeal requires interpretation and application of the 
Wyoming Governmental Claims Act ("WGCA"), Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-39-101 et seq. (LexisNexis 2003).  Statutory interpretation is a question 
of law, which we review de novo.  
Qwest Corp. v. State, 2006 WY 
35, ¶ 8, 130 P.3d 507, 511 (Wyo. 2006).  

 
 
In interpreting statutes, 
we primarily determine the legislature's intent. If the language is sufficiently 
clear, we do not resort to rules of construction. We apply our general rule that 
we look to the ordinary and obvious meaning of a statute when the language is 
unambiguous.  

 
 
We construe together all 
parts of the statutes in pari materia, and, in ascertaining the 
meaning of a given law, we consider and construe in harmony all statutes 
relating to the same subject or having the same general purpose. 

When the language is 
not clear or is ambiguous, the court must look to the mischief the statute was 
intended to cure, the historical setting surrounding its enactment, the public 
policy of the state, the conclusions of law, and other prior and contemporaneous 
facts and circumstances, making use of the accepted rules of construction to 
ascertain a legislative intent that is reasonable and 
consistent.

 
 

Fosler v. Collins (In re 
Estate of Fosler), 13 P.3d 686, 688 (Wyo. 
2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶6]      The City contends 
that Mr. Cottier's claim for damages is precluded by governmental immunity.  The City does not challenge the district 
court's finding that it was negligent.  Rather, the City's sole claim is that it 
is immune from liability under the facts of this case.

 
 
[¶7]      The WGCA is a 
close-ended tort claims act.  Gibson v. State, 811 P.2d 726, 728 
(Wyo. 
1991).  Unless a claim falls within 
one of the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity, it will be 
barred.  Id.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-108 (LexisNexis 
2003) provides: 

 
 
(a)    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.

 
 
         
(b)  The liability imposed 
pursuant to subsection (a) of this section does not include liability for 
damages resulting from bodily injury, wrongful death or property damage caused 
by a failure to provide an adequate supply of gas, water, electricity or 
services as described in subsection (a) of this section.

 
 
(Emphasis added.)  The City asserts that its negligence in 
this case relates to its failure to maintain the sewer system.  It argues that immunity under Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 1-39-108 is waived only for negligence in the "operation" of a public 
utility and not for "maintenance."  
The City contends that if the legislature intended wavier of immunity for 
maintenance of the sewer system, it would have included the specific term 
"maintenance" in the statute.  

 
 
[¶8]      Although the City 
characterizes the issue as one of "maintenance" versus "operation" to determine 
immunity, we think the proper question is what did the legislature mean by the 
phrase "operation of a public utility?"2  "Operation" is not further defined by 
the statute.  When a term is not 
defined, we will furnish an ordinary and obvious meaning.  Keser v. State, 706 P.2d 263, 266 
(Wyo. 1985) 
("the plain, ordinary, and usual meaning of words used in a statute controls in 
the absence of clear statutory provisions to the contrary").  The American Heritage College Dictionary 
975 (4th ed. 2004), defines "operation" as the "state of being 
operative or functional."  See also Webster's Ninth New Collegiate 
Dictionary 827 (1991).  Black's Law 
Dictionary 1092 (6th ed. 1990), defines 
"operation" as "the process of operating or mode of action."  

 
 
[¶9]      This plain and 
ordinary meaning of "operation" is consistent with the meaning attributed to the 
term in the industry.  City 
employees testified that maintenance is included in the operation of the sewer 
system:

 
 
[PLAINTIFF'S 
COUNSEL]   Is one of your main 
jobs inspecting, cleaning, maintaining sewer line obstructions or sewer 
lines?

 
 
[EMPLOYEE 1]         
Sewer lines, yes, correct.

 
 
[PLAINTIFF'S 
COUNSEL]   Are all these jobs 
part of the general, overall operation of the sewer 
system?

 
 
[EMPLOYEE 1]         
Correct.

 
 
***

 
 
[PLAINTIFF'S 
COUNSEL]   And does your job 
include supervising operation of the town's sewer system?

 
 
[EMPLOYEE 2]         
Yes, it does.

 
 
[PLAINTIFF'S 
COUNSEL]   And does the 
operation of that system include inspection, maintenance, keeping it free from 
obstructions?

 
 
[EMPLOYEE 2]         
That's part of it.

 
 

[¶10]   We also have recognized that 
operation of a public utility entails keeping the sewer system free from 
blockage.  For example, in South Cheyenne Water and Sewer District v. 
Stundon, 483 P.2d 240, 241 (Wyo. 1971), we 
acknowledged appellant's concession that, in Wyoming, a municipality is liable for 
negligence in the operation of its sewer system.  We then restated our holding from Lore v. Town of Douglas, 355 P.2d 367, 
370 (Wyo. 
1960) that a "municipality is liable . . . for failure to exercise ordinary and 
reasonable care to keep its sewers in repair and free from obstruction."  South Cheyenne Water and Sewer District, 483 P.2d  at 
241.  Although these cases were 
decided prior to the enactment of the WGCA, nothing in the WGCA changes the 
understanding that operation of a public utility requires the sewer lines to be 
kept free from obstruction.  See In re Estate of Fosler, 13 P.3d  at 
689 ("All statutes are presumed to be enacted by the legislature with full 
knowledge of the existing state of law with reference thereto and statutes are 
therefore to be construed in harmony with the existing law, and as a part of an 
overall and uniform system of jurisprudence, and their meaning and effect is to 
be determined in connection, not only with the common law and the constitution, 
but also with reference to the decisions of the courts.").

 
 
[¶11]   The City attributes significance to 
the legislature's use of the term "operation" as opposed to "operation and 
maintenance" in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-108.  The City claims that the legislature's 
intentional selection of the sole term "operation" must be given effect.  In support of its position, the City 
points us to the legislature's use of both terms in another governmental claims 
statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-106 (liability in operation or maintenance of 
buildings, recreation areas and public parks),3 and to provisions of Chapter 
7 (Public Improvements), Title 15 (Cities and Towns) of the Wyoming Statutes.4  The City also relies on our decision in 
Harbel v. Wintermute, 883 P.2d 359 (Wyo. 
1994) for its contention that "operation" excludes "maintenance."  

 
 
[¶12]   We recognize that "[t]he omission 
of words from a statute is considered to be an intentional act by the 
Legislature, and [we] will not supply words in the process of 
interpretation."  Fullmer v. Wyoming Employment Sec. Comm'n, 
858 P.2d 1122, 1124 (Wyo. 1993).  However, by applying the plain and 
ordinary meaning of the term "operation," we are not inserting words into the 
statute.  "Operation of a public 
utility" is a broad concept which includes acts required to keep the utility 
functional.  See, e.g., City of Colorado Springs v. 
Powell, 48 P.3d 561, 565 (Colo. 2002) (sanitation facility statute uses 
both "operation" and "maintenance" yet the interpretation of "operation" 
includes concept of "maintenance").  
See also Holiday Management Co. v. 
City of Santa Fe, 610 P.2d 1197 (N.M. 1980) (finding waiver of immunity for 
failure to keep sewer line free from obstruction even though statutory language 
used the term "operation" rather than "operation and maintenance").5  A sewer system simply cannot operate if 
it is permitted to become obstructed or clogged.  Keeping sewage lines free from 
obstruction is essential to proper operation of a sewage line.  See, e.g., Ely v. Kirk, 707 P.2d 706, 
710 (Wyo. 
1985) ("a reasonable person would take action to make the system effective from 
the standpoint of accomplishing its purpose, i.e., delivering sewage to the 
disposal plant and not to the basements of residences").  

 
 
[¶13]   The City's reliance on our decision 
in Harbel is misplaced.  In Harbel, we were asked to 
determine what constitutes the "operation of any motor vehicle" pursuant to 
Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-105, which 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 any motor vehicle, aircraft or 
watercraft.

 
 
Mr. Harbel was injured 
while operating a front-end loader.  
Harbel, 883 P.2d  at 
361-362.  He filed an action 
against his supervisor and the mechanic, asserting that negligence in 
supervisory and maintenance obligations are included within the meaning of the 
terms "operation of a motor vehicle."  
Id. at 362.  We disagreed, finding operation of a 
vehicle distinct from maintenance of a motor vehicle.  Id. 
at 365.  We concluded that 
"operation" of the loader could not be imputed to a supervisor or others not in 
actual physical control of the motor vehicle and held that governmental 
liability had not been waived under the facts presented.  Id. 
at 365, 367.  However, the 
distinction we recognized between "operation" and "maintenance" in the context 
of motor vehicles and our interpretation of Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-105 is difficult 
to make in the context of public utilities.  

 
 
[¶14]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-108 waives 
immunity for the negligence of public employees in the operation of public 
utilities and services including, solid or liquid waste collection or 
disposal.  In other words, the 
statute waives immunity for negligence in keeping the public utility operable or 
functional.  If an obstruction in 
the line occurs and is not removed, the sewer lines are no longer functional or 
operable.  

 
 
[¶15]   The WGCA was intended to "afford a 
remedy to persons injured by negligent public employees, while avoiding the 
repeated litigation of the question of governmental immunity."  Hamlin v. Transcon Lines, 701 P.2d 1139, 
1144 (Wyo. 
1985).  Prior to the enactment of 
WGCA, public utilities were liable for acts and omissions similar to those at 
issue in this case.  By enacting 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-108, the legislature clearly intended for a public 
utility to be liable in circumstances relating to the operation of a public 
utility.  If keeping the sewer 
system free from obstruction is not a component of "operation," we are hard 
pressed to envision any conduct relating to the operation of a sewer system that 
would result in liability to the governmental entity.  Adoption of the reasoning urged by the 
City would render the intended waiver of immunity under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
1-39-108 illusory.  We must presume 
"the legislature did not intend futile things."  Hamlin, 701 P.2d  at 1142.  

 
 
[¶16]   We find no error in the district 
court's determination that the City's negligent acts fall within the waiver of 
immunity provided in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-108.  Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The City is 
responsible for the main sewer lines, also known as trunk lines.  Homeowners are responsible for the lines 
running from their residences to the main or trunk 
line.

 
 

2We have 
previously determined that enacting an ordinance is not conduct that falls 
within the waiver of immunity granted by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-108(a) for 
"operation of a public utility."  See Sawyer v. City of Sheridan, 793 P.2d 476, 478 (Wyo. 
1990).

 
 

3Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 1-39-106 (LexisNexis 2003) provides:

§ 
1-39-106  Liability; buildings, recreation areas and public 
parks.

  
          
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 or maintenance of 
any building, recreation area or public park.

 
 

4Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 15-7-405(d) 
(LexisNexis 2003) provides, in pertinent part, that the superintendent of a 
board of public utilities shall:

 
 

(i)       
 Manage and control the water plant and 
its distribution system, the sanitary sewer system including sewage disposal 
plant or plants and the electric utility distribution 
system;

 
 

(ii)     
 Supervise and inspect all parts of the 
plants and see that they are maintained in good condition for use and that all 
employees attend to their respective duties; 

 
 

(iii)    
 Keep in good repair all machinery and 
other property;

 

Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 15-7-502(a) (LexisNexis 2003) provides, in pertinent part, that any city 
or town may:

 
 
(iii)  Enter into contracts and agreements with 
other local public bodies covering the joint construction, operation and 
maintenance of a sewerage system;

 
 
(iv)  Accept contributions and other aid from 
commercial, industrial and other establishments to aid in the prevention or 
abatement of water pollution, and in furtherance of that purpose enter into 
contracts and agreements with commercial, industrial and other establishments 
covering the:

 
 
. . 
.

 
 
(B)  Use and operation by any city or town of 
sewerage collection, treatment and disposal facilities owned by any commercial, 
industrial and other establishment; 

 
 
Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 15-7-701(a)(LexisNexis 2003) provides, in pertinent 
part:

 
 
The 
governing body of any city or town may grant the right to construct, maintain 
and operate a system of waterworks within the corporate limits of the city or 
town to any corporation organized under the laws of Wyoming for that purpose. 
. . . 

 
 
 
 
 
 

5New 
Mexico's 
close-ended governmental claims statute for liability of public utilities is 
similar to our statute.  See 
Lawrence J. Wolfe, Comment, Wyoming's Governmental Claims Act:  
Sovereign Immunity With Exceptions  A Statutory Analysis, XV Land & 
Water L. Rev. 619, 623 (1980) (noting that Wyoming's Governmental Claims Act is 
similar to the New Mexico Tort Claims Act and that we should turn to it for 
guidance in interpreting our governmental claims act).  It 
provides:

 
 
§ 
41-4-8.  Liability; public utilities 

   
A. The immunity granted pursuant to Subsection A of Section 4 [41-4-4 NMSA 1978] 
of the Tort Claims Act [41-4-1 NMSA 1978] does not apply to liability 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 the following 
public utilities and services: gas; electricity; water; solid or liquid 
waste collection or disposal; heating; and ground 
transportation.

   B. The liability imposed pursuant 
to Subsection A of this section shall not include liability for damages 
resulting from bodily injury, wrongful death or property 
damage:

   
(1) caused by a failure to provide an adequate supply of gas, water, electricity 
or services as described in Subsection A of this section; 
or

   
(2) arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, 
soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials 
or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere 
or any watercourse or body of water.

 
 
N.M. Stat. 
Ann. § 41-4-8 (emphasis added).  

 
 
We further 
note that New 
Mexico has a governmental claims statute relating to 
public parks and buildings, similar to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-106, which uses 
both "operation" and "maintenance."  
See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 
41-4-6.  Despite this fact, the New 
Mexico Supreme Court determined the public utility statute waives immunity for a 
municipality's negligence in maintaining its sewer system.  Holiday Management Co., 610 P.2d  at 
1197.