Title: SERDA v. DENNIS

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

SERDA v. DENNIS2004 WY 141100 P.3d 860Case Number: 04-50Decided: 11/16/2004
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2004

 

                                                                                                            

 

JOE 
SERDA and SONJIA SERDA,

 

Appellants(Plaintiffs),

 

v.

 

PAULA 
DENNIS,

 

Appellee(Defendant).

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Ronald 
G. Pretty, Cheyenne, Wyoming

 

Representing 
Appellee:

Gary 
R. Scott of Hirst & Applegate, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming

 

 

Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.; and KAUTZ, 
D.J.

 

 

 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

            

[¶1]           
Following 
a defense verdict in a motor vehicle collision case, the Serdas appeal certain 
evidentiary rulings by the trial court.  
Finding the issues to be moot, we dismiss this 
appeal.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]           
The 
Serdas present the following issues:

 

1. 
Can the legislature decide what evidence can be introduced into a 
trial[?]

 

2. 
Did the court err by allowance of the introduction of the allegation that a 
witness smelled alcohol on the appellant's breath[?]

 

Dennis 
adds one further issue: "Was any err [sic] of the trial court harmless since the 
jury found that neither Plaintiff had been damaged as a result of the 
accident?"

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]           
Joe 
Serda was involved in a traffic accident with Paula Dennis.  Mr. Serda and his wife sued Dennis for 
personal injury damages, and a jury trial was held.  Both Mr. Serda and Dennis blamed the 
other for running a red light.  
Dennis was issued a citation at the scene of the accident for running a 
red light, but she contested the citation, and the citation was dismissed.  The trial court did not allow any 
information regarding the traffic citation issued to Dennis to be introduced at 
trial, possibly applying the dictates of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-1208 as it 
interpreted them.1  A tow truck driver at the scene of the 
accident testified at trial that he smelled alcohol on Serda's breath.  After trial, the jury apportioned fault, 
finding Dennis was 10% at fault and Serda was 90% at fault, and determined that 
the Serdas suffered no damages.  

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶4]           
In 
this appeal, the Serdas only challenge rulings relating to the issue of 
liability.  Their first argument is 
that evidence regarding the issuance of the citation to Dennis should have been 
admissible.  Their second argument 
is that evidence regarding the perceived presence of alcohol on Mr. Serda's 
breath should not have been admissible.  
The only significance of either evidentiary ruling relates to how the 
accident happened and the degree to which Mr. Serda or Ms. Dennis were 
responsible for the accident.

 

[¶5]           
Of 
more importance is what the Serdas do not challenge.  They do not take issue with the jury's 
finding that they did not suffer any damages.  The jury finding on damages is thus 
conclusive.  Rosics v. Heath, 
746 P.2d 1284, 1287 (Wyo. 1987) ("Appellant has never challenged this aspect of 
the Wyoming court's findings, and therefore, we deem it conclusive.").  Because the jury determined that the 
Serdas suffered no damages, any issue regarding liability is moot.  This Court will not consider moot 
issues.  As the United States 
Supreme Court succinctly explained when faced with an appeal whose issues had 
become moot:

 

We 
are of opinion that the appeal must be dismissed upon this ground [mootness], 
without considering any other question appearing on the record or discussed by 
counsel.

 

The 
duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual 
controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give 
opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare 
principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case 
before it. 

 

Mills 
v. Green, 
159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S. Ct. 132, 133, 40 L. Ed. 293 (1895).  

 

[¶6]           
The 
question of liability is irrelevant if there are no damages.  No decision this Court might reach on 
the issues presented will affect the ultimate outcome of the case sub judice  
zero recovery.  This Court will not 
consider an appeal when its decision can have no practical effect.  In re SNK, 2003 WY 141, ¶18, 78 P.3d 1032, ¶18 (Wyo. 2003) (quoting Wyoming Bd. of Outfitters & Prof'l 
Guides v. Clark, 2002 WY 24, ¶9, 39 P.3d 1106, ¶9 (Wyo. 2002)).  "When the determination of a matter is 
sought which, if provided, cannot have any practical effect on the existing 
controversy, the case is moot," and dismissal of the appeal is the appropriate 
response by this Court.  McLain 
v. Anderson, 933 P.2d 468, 472 (Wyo. 1997).  Appeal dismissed.

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1Title 31, Chapter 5 deals with motor vehicle regulation. Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 31-5-1208 (LexisNexis 2003) states: "No evidence of the conviction of any 
person for any violation of this act is admissible in any court in any civil 
action."  There is some debate as to 
the actual foundation applied by the trial court for its ruling.