Opinion ID: 2617549
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: shisler's motion for summary judgment

Text: 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)). 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). 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.) 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). 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.