A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary6,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

W I LLI AM BO SW ELL,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. CO L L OI D E NVI RO NM E NT AL T E CH NOL OGI E S CO M P ANY, d o i n g b u s i n e s s a s CE T CO ; AM CO L I NT E RN AT I ONAL CO RP OR AT I ON; AM E RI CA N CO L L OI D C OM P ANY,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 8043 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 1 5 8 - W CB)

(D . W y o .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e P O R F IL IO , BA LD OCK , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es.T h e p a rt ie s a g re e d to p ro c e e d b e fo re a m a g is tr a te ju d g e . See 2 8 U. S . C. 1 § 6 3 6 (c ). D efe ndantA m er i can Col l oi d C o. ( A C C ) pr oces s es cl ayi nt o bent oni t e that 2 i ts el l s t o C E T C O . D efe ndantA M C O L I nt ernat i onal C orp. i s the par ent corpor at i on of A C C and C E T C O . W e r efe rt o al l defe ndant s col l ect i vel yas “ C E T C O .”

- 2- Pl ai nt i ff W i l l i am B os w el l appea l s the di s tr i ct court ’ s or dergr ant i ng 1 s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof defendant s on hi s cl ai m s of negl i gence and p re m is e s lia b ility. W e e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffir m . B ackgr ound M r . B os w el l , a N evada ci t i zen, w as empl oy ed byFr eedom T rucki ng and F & L T ru c k in g (F re e d o m ) a s a c o m m e rc ial tru c k d riv e r. D e fe n d a n t C o llo id E nvi r onm ent al T echnol ogi es C o. ( C E T C O ) hi r ed Fr eedom as an i ndepende nt 2 contr act ort o tr ans por ta s hi pm entof B ent oM at , a bent oni t e pr oduct , fr om CE T CO ’ s p l a n ti n L o v e l l , Wy o mi n g , t o a d e s t i n a t i o n i n Ca l i fo rn i a . On Sept ember27, 2001, M r . B os w el l arr i ved atthe C E T C O pl antt o pi ck up the B e n to M a t. A f

ter sig n in g a sa fe tyfo rm th a t re q u ire d , am o n g o th e r th in g s, a ll load s to b e c o v ere d , M r. B o sw ell d rov e h is truc k to the load ing d o ck w h ere C E T C O empl oy ees pl ace d the r ol l s of B ent oM aton hi s fl atbed tr ai l er . Fr om ther e, M r . B os w el l w entt o the des i gnat ed t arpi ng ar ea w her e he c l i m bed on t op of th e lo a d a n d b e g a n c o v e rin g th e lo a d w ith tarp s h e c a rrie d w ith th e tra iler. W h ile doi ng s o, he fe l l fr om the t op of the tr ai l erand s us t ai ned s ever e, perm anent inju ri e s .M r. B o s w e ll h a s a b a n d o n e d o n a p p e a l h is c o lla te ra l- e s to p p e l a rg u m e n t. 3

- 3- M r . B os w el l fi l ed s ui tal l egi ng thatdefe ndant s w er e l i abl e forhi s i nj ur i es bas ed on negl i gence and pr emi s es - l i abi l i tytheor i es . T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed su m m a ryju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f C E T C O , h o ld in g th a t th e u n d isp u ted fa c ts demonstr at ed thatC E T C O di d notcontr ol how M r . B os w el l t arped hi s l oad, and there fo re, C E T C O d id n o t ow e h im a d u tyo f c are . In a d d it ion , the c o u rt det erm i ned thatthe evi dence di d nots how thatC E T C O aff i r m at i vel yas s um ed d u ti es o f sa fe tyto M r. B o sw ell in o rde r t o cre ate a d u tyo f c are . L ater, the c o u rt deni ed M r . B os w el l ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, a rul i ng thathas notbeen a p p e a le d a n d is n o t b e fo re u s . O n appea l , M r . B os w el l ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n hol di ng that C E T C O d id n o t o w e h im a d u tyo f c a re . H e m a in tain s th a t C E T C O o w e d h im such a d utybecau se i texerci sed con trol ov er the h azard that caused his i njur i es. 3 H e al s o chal l enges the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on thatthe exi s t ence of di s put ed m at er i al fac t s as t o the degr ee t o w hi ch C E T C O had fa l l pr ot ect i on avai l abl e w as i rr el evanti n the abs ence of a l egal dutyof ca r e. D is cus s i on M r. B o sw e ll b ro u g h t su it i n a W y o m in g fe d e ra l co u rt in v o k in g d iv e rsity ju ri s d ic tio n . See 28 U . S. C . § 1332( a) . A ccor di ngl y , w e appl ythe s ubs t ant i ve l aw o f W y o m in g , th e fo ru m s ta te . C lark v. Stat e Farm Mut . A ut o. Ins . C o. , 433 F. 3d- 4-

703, 709 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . “W e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of [W y om i ng] l aw de novo. ” K ys arv. A m oco Prod. C o. , 379 F. 3d 1150, 1155 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e a lso re v iew d e n o v o th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t, v iew ing the re co rd in the ligh t m o st fav o rab le t o the p artyo p p o sing su m m ary ju d g m e n t. L a n m a n v . Jo h n so n C o u n ty , 3 9 3 F .3 d 1 1 5 1 , 1 1 5 4 -5 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e i f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand the m o v ing p artyis en ti tl ed to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c); C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 4 7 7 U .S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 -2 3 (1 9 8 6 ). T he di s tr i ctcourtthor oughl yanal y zed W y om i ng l aw governi ng M r . B os w el l ’ s cl ai m s . A ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d, the br i efs , and the r el evant a u th o ri tie s , w e fin d n o e rr o r i n th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s a n a lysis o r j u d g m e n t. W e therefore affi rm for the reasons given b ythe d i stri ctcou rti n it s O rderon P art i es’ C ro s s -M o tio n s fo r S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t file d M a y9 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e j u d g me n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

B obbyR . B al dock C i r cui tJ udge