Title: Shisler v. Town of Jackson

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Shisler v. Town of Jackson1995 WY 16890 P.2d 555Case Number: 94-103Decided: 02/17/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

Henrietta SHISLER, Appellant (Plaintiff)

v.

The TOWN OF JACKSON, Wyoming, a Governmental Entity; 
and Teton County, Wyoming, a Governmental Entity, Appellees 
(Defendants).

Appeal 
from District Court of Teton County, Elizabeth A. Kail, 
J.

Robert W. Horn, Jackson, for appellant.

R. Michael Mullikin of 
Mullikin, Larson & Swift, Jackson, for appellees.

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

TAYLOR, 
Justice.

[¶1]      This appeal 
arises from a judgment entered on a jury verdict that denied appellant recovery 
in a negligence case. Appellant raises issues regarding the application of the 
Wyoming Governmental Claims Act; unanswered interrogatories on the verdict form; 
and an alleged conflict of interest that appellant argues tainted evidence 
presented by appellees at trial. The district court entered judgment in favor of 
appellees. Appellant was ordered to pay costs.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

I. 
ISSUES

[¶3]      Appellant 
presents the following issues for our review:

I.          
Where uncontroverted evidence was presented that the Teton County Library 
is used by  citizens for the 
purposes of amusement and diversion, was appellant entitled to summary judgment 
on the issue of whether the Teton County Library was a recreation area within 
the meaning of Wyoming Statute § 1-39-106?

II.          
Where the trial court submitted to the jury a special verdict form and 
provided instruction that the form was to [be] completed by the jury, was it 
reversible error for the trial court to accept an incomplete verdict from the 
jury which failed [to answer] certain * * * questions 
submitted?

III.         
Should a trial court allow an attorney jointly representing two 
defendants to present inconsistent defenses at trial on behalf of those 
defendants?

[¶4]      Appellees restate 
the issues:

I.          
Whether the characterization of the location of plaintiff's fall near the 
improvements known as the Teton County Library building and grounds was a 
"building, recreation area or public park" within the meaning of Wyoming Statute 
§ 1-39-106 or as a "sidewalk" within the meaning of Wyoming Statute § 1-39-120 
was an issue of fact or law.

II.          
Whether the location of plaintiff's fall near the improvements known as 
the Teton County Library building and grounds was a "recreation area" within the 
meaning of Wyoming Statute § 1-39-106.

III.         
Whether, assuming arguendo, the Teton County Library building and grounds 
was a "recreation area" within the meaning of Wyoming Statute § 1-39-106, the 
jury verdict would have been different. 

IV.        Whether 
answers to special interrogatories numbers 1 and 2 relating to the 
characterization of the location of the fall were necessary to the rendition of 
a complete and proper verdict.

V.        Whether the 
trial court properly denied [appellant's] motion to disallow testimony for 
alleged ethical violations.

VI.        Whether, 
assuming arguendo, any of appellant's points on appeal are meritorious, 
appellant has designated a sufficient record to support any claim for reversible 
error.

II. 
FACTS

[¶5]      Appellant, 
Henrietta Shisler (Shisler), fell on a wooden walkway outside the Teton County 
Library (Library) in Jackson, Wyoming and injured her elbow. She sought 
compensation from appellees, Town of Jackson (Town) and Teton County (County). 
The Town and the County each denied Shisler's claim.

[¶6]      Shisler then 
filed a complaint in district court against both the Town and the County. After 
filing an amended complaint, Shisler filed a motion for summary judgment, 
arguing that the Library was a "recreation area" within the meaning of the 
Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The district court denied that 
motion.

[¶7]      A jury trial 
began on January 17, 1994. At trial, the Town and the County were both 
represented by the same attorney. Counsel for the Town and the County attested 
that both clients consented to dual representation.

[¶8]      The jury, having 
found no fault or damages, asked the district court whether certain 
interrogatories on the verdict form had to be answered. The district court 
responded that, given the verdict of no fault and no damages, it was not 
necessary to answer the interrogatories. Following entry of the verdict, the 
district court ordered that Shisler recover nothing from the Town or the County 
and that Shisler pay costs in the amount of $518.35.

III. 
DISCUSSION

SHISLER'S 
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[¶9]      Summary judgment 
will be granted only if there are no genuine issues of fact in dispute, and the 
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Roemer Oil Co. v. Aztec 
Gas & Oil Corp., 886 P.2d 259, 262 (Wyo. 1994). On appeal, the record will 
be construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and all 
favorable inferences that can be drawn from that record will be drawn in favor 
of the non-moving party. Mountain Cement Co. v. Johnson, 884 P.2d 30, 32 (Wyo. 
1994) (quoting Four Nines Gold, Inc. v. 71 Constr., Inc., 809 P.2d 236, 238 
(Wyo. 1991)).

[¶10]   In her motion for summary judgment, 
Shisler asked the district court to rule that the Library is a "recreation area" 
as defined in Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-106 (1988). The district court denied the motion 
without elaboration. The district court could not have granted the motion unless 
it concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and 
that the Library was a "recreation area" as defined in the Wyoming Governmental 
Claims Act. Wyo. Stat. §§ 1-39-101 through 1-39-120 (1988 & Cum.Supp. 
1994).

[¶11]   Shisler argues that the district 
court erred when it did not find, as a matter of law, that the Library was a 
"recreation area" under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. Wyo. Stat. § 
1-39-106 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 or maintenance of any 
building, recreation area or public 
park.

(Emphasis 
added.)

[¶12]   We need not, at this time, rule on 
the question of whether the Library is a "recreation area" as defined under the 
Wyoming Governmental Claims Act because Shisler has failed to establish an 
essential element of her tort claim. The jury determined that neither the Town 
nor the County was at fault. In other words, the jury found that neither the 
Town nor the County breached any duty owed to Shisler. Where no duty is 
breached, the plaintiff cannot prevail on a negligence claim. Norman v. City of 
Gillette, 658 P.2d 697, 699 (Wyo. 1983).

[¶13]   Thus, the question of whether the 
Library is a "recreation area" is rendered moot. The mootness doctrine is 
"premised upon jurisprudential principles which are designed to promote judicial 
economy * * *." Reiman Corp. v. City of Cheyenne, 838 P.2d 1182, 1186 (Wyo. 
1992). This court need not decide an issue that is moot and will not render 
advisory opinions. See Mari v. Rawlins Nat. Bank of Rawlins, 794 P.2d 85, 89 
(Wyo. 1990). The question of whether the Library is a "recreation area," as that 
issue relates to Shisler's negligence claim, is moot and, therefore, will not be 
considered.

UNANSWERED 
INTERROGATORIES

[¶14]   This court has not set forth a rule 
for reviewing unanswered interrogatories. However, in Sherwood B. Korssjoen, 
Inc. v. Heiman, 52 Wn. App. 843, 765 P.2d 301, 304 (1988), the Washington Court 
of Appeals articulated a standard that we find persuasive. In discussing the 
consequences of a jury's failure to answer special interrogatories, the 
Washington Court of Appeals said:

The modern rule is that where the unanswered special 
interrogatories concern determinative issues, the absence of jury findings is 
prejudicial and requires a new trial, at least on the unresolved issues; but where the unanswered issues are not 
material, or where answers can be derived from the jury's responses to other 
interrogatories, the court may enter a 
judgment on the verdict.

Id., 765 P.2d  at 304 
(emphasis added and footnote omitted).

[¶15]   Shisler argues that the district 
court erred when it accepted the incomplete verdict form. The jury did not 
answer the question of whether the accident occurred as a result of the 
operation or maintenance of a building or the question of whether the accident 
occurred on a sidewalk. These questions, however, were rendered immaterial when 
the jury determined that neither the Town nor the County breached any duty owed 
to Shisler.

[¶16]   As indicated in Sherwood B. 
Korssjoen, Inc., 765 P.2d  at 304, judgment can be entered on the verdict if the 
issues in the unanswered interrogatories are immaterial. The unanswered 
interrogatories on the verdict form in this case were immaterial because the 
jury found that neither the Town nor the County breached any duty owed to 
Shisler. Since neither the Town nor the County breached any duty, Shisler failed 
to establish an essential element of her negligence claim. See Norman, 658 P.2d  
at 699. The district court, therefore, did not err in entering judgment on the 
verdict.

CONFLICT 
OF INTEREST AND EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

[¶17]   The decision to grant or deny a 
motion to disqualify counsel is within the discretion of the district court. 
Rose v. Rose, 849 P.2d 1321, 1325 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Weaver v. Millard, 120 
Idaho 692, 819 P.2d 110, 114-15 (1991)). We will not find an abuse of discretion 
unless the district court "exceeds the bounds of reason or commits an error of 
law." Combs v. Sherry-Combs, 865 P.2d 50, 55 (Wyo. 1993). Admission of evidence 
is also left to the sound discretion of the district court. Haderlie v. 
Sondgeroth, 866 P.2d 703, 712 (Wyo. 1993).

[¶18]   Counsel for the Town and the County 
filed a "Certification as to Compliance With Rule 1.7, Rules of Professional 
Conduct For Attorneys At Law" with the district court. In chambers, the district 
court said "there [is] little question in the Court's mind that [counsel] [has] 
authorization from attorneys for both entities [to] provide this dual 
representation." The district court found that the interests of the Town and the 
County were not so adverse that counsel's representation of either of his 
clients was compromised. We hold that the district court did not abuse its 
discretion in allowing the dual representation.

[¶19]   Shisler also claims she was 
prejudiced when the district court allowed counsel, representing both the Town 
and the County, to offer "testimony from each defendant that maintenance of the 
Library was the other defendant's responsibility." Shisler contends this 
testimony created confusion and tainted the evidence the jury was to consider. 
The record reveals no abuse of discretion in this regard and, absent a clear 
abuse of discretion, we will not disturb an evidentiary ruling on appeal. 
Haderlie, 866 P.2d  at 712.

IV. 
CONCLUSION

[¶20Since the jury found no 
fault on the part of either the Town or the County, the first two issues raised 
by Shisler are moot. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 
allowing dual representation or in any evidentiary ruling. The jury verdict and 
the judgment of the district court are affirmed.