Opinion ID: 2516937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶4] Hannifan and Hampleman raise these issues: A. Since there was insufficient evidence presented at trial from which the jury could find that either [Hannifan or Hampleman] intentionally acted to cause physical harm or injury to [Butts], are [Hannifan and Hampleman] entitled to judgment as a matter of law? B. If [Hannifan and Hampleman] are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, are [they] entitled to a new trial because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the elements of co-employee liability, and refused [their] tendered co-employee liability instructions? C. Are [Hannifan and Hampleman] entitled to a new trial because Butts's counsel informed the jury in closing argument that any fault it attributed to the non-party, Thunder Basin Coal Company, would diminish [Butts's] damages recovery? Butts restates the issues like this: 1. Did the trial judge commit prejudicial error when under the facts of this case he instructed the jury on the issue of co-employee liability with the standard approved by this Court in Bertagnolli v. Louderback 67 P.3d 627 (2003)? 2. Did the trial judge abuse his discretion denying [Hannifan's and Hampleman's] post trial motions and ruling that the evidence as presented by [Butts] met the standard set by this Court in Bertagnolli ? 3. Did the trial judge abuse his discretion in denying [Hannifan's and Hampleman's] Motion for Mistrial based upon comments of [Butts's] counsel in closing argument which were consistent with the instructions of the [trial court] and non-prejudicial? In their reply brief, Hannifan and Hampleman address a number of new issues which they claim arise from Butts's brief: 1. Whether or not Wyoming is an intentional injury state. 2. Whether Mills v. Reynolds, 837 P.2d 48 (Wyo. 1992) ( Mills II ) prevents co-employee immunity for willful and wanton misconduct and, if so, whether Mills II should now be modified. 3. Whether the facts cited by [Butts] satisfy the statutory standard for co-employee liability. 4. Whether [Hannifan and Hampleman] properly preserved their objections to co-employee liability instructions given by the trial court. 5. Whether [Butts's] counsel's remarks in closing argument was harmless error because of the jury's ultimate allocation of fault. 6. Whether others at the mine had direct supervisory responsibility over Mr. Butts.