Opinion ID: 2637827
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the sheriff on the state law tort claims?

Text: [¶ 17] It is somewhat difficult, with any assurance of accuracy, to identify from the complaint what state law tort claims the appellant intended to allege against the sheriff. Assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, are apparently intended to target both the deputy and the sheriff, while failure to control detention officer, is obviously aimed at the sheriff. The summary judgment as to assault and battery was not appealed, so we will ignore that cause of action. As to intentional infliction of emotional distress, the complaint alleges that the deputy acted while on duty as a detention officer in [sic] behalf of the Sheriff.... Such language suggests a respondeat superior theory of liability, if it is meant to be an accusation against the sheriff. [¶ 18] The third cause of actionfailure to control detention deputyis confusing in and of itself, although it is no doubt directed at the sheriff. After citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-603 (LexisNexis 2009), the complaint alleges the deputy's intentional sexual assault of the appellant in the course of employment through the use of the power and authority given him as a detention officer of the Sheriff. [7] Once again, this suggests liability on the part of the sheriff under a theory of respondeat superior, but it is unclear that such was intended. The following paragraph, under the same cause of action, alleges that [t]he Sheriff negligently failed to exercise reasonable care so as to control [the deputy] to prevent him from intentionally harming [the appellant].... This direct allegation of negligence against the sheriff sets forth claims of negligent hiring, negligent rulemaking, and negligent supervision. [¶ 19] In her appellate brief, the appellant clarifies her allegations against the sheriff as follows: The [appellant] also sued the Sheriff in his official capacity based on state law claims, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of duty to keep the jail and prisoners safe pursuant to WYO. STAT. § 18-3-603(a). Her argument is that the cited statute creates a nondelegable duty on the part of the sheriff to care for prisoners, and that such duty cannot be escaped by asserting that the act of the detention deputy was not authorized by the sheriff. She relies upon Restatement (Second) of Agency § 214 (1958), Restatement (Second) of Torts § 424 (1965); McLean v. Hyland Enters., Inc., 2001 WY 111, ¶ 25, 34 P.3d 1262, 1269 (Wyo.2001) (employee termination); Abeyta v. Hensley, 595 P.2d 71, 73 (Wyo.1979) (coemployee negligence); and Engen v. Rambler Copper & Platinum Co., 20 Wyo. 95, 121 P. 867, 874 (1912) (master's duty of care to servant). [¶ 20] The district court granted summary judgment to the sheriff on the state law tort claims, after a complex analysis of nondelegable duty, statutory construction, and strict liability. We will affirm the summary judgment, but upon slightly different grounds. If Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-603 created a nondelegable duty on the part of the sheriff to care for prisoners, a question we need not answer, such was impliedly repealed by the much-later enacted WGCA. While we have repeatedly stated the general rule that statutory repeals by implication are not favored, we have also repeatedly stated just as firmly that where the later statute is so repugnant to the earlier one that the two cannot logically stand together, or that the whole subject of the earlier statute is covered by the later one having the same object, clearly intending to prescribe the only rules applicable to the subject[,] the former statute has been repealed. Mathewson v. City of Cheyenne, 2003 WY 10, ¶ 11, 61 P.3d 1229, 1233 (Wyo.2003); see also Shumway v. Worthey, 2001 WY 130, ¶ 15, 37 P.3d 361, 367 (Wyo.2001); Longacre v. State, 448 P.2d 832, 833 (Wyo.1968); Doyle v. Schroeder, 76 Wyo. 178, 301 P.2d 379, 380 (1956); and State v. Cantrell, 64 Wyo. 132, 186 P.2d 539, 542 (1947). Specifically, we have applied this latter concept to statutes impliedly repealed by enactment of the WGCA. See Emulsified Asphalt, Inc. of Wyo. v. Transp. Comm'n of Wyo., 970 P.2d 858, 859, 863-64 (Wyo.1998) (later general statute intended to address entire subject of sovereign immunity repealed earlier specific statute). [¶ 21] The WGCA, at Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-102 (LexisNexis 2009), clearly evinces the legislature's intent that the WGCA cover the field of sovereign immunity and liability. And under the WGCA, immunity is the rule and liability the exception, for both the governmental entity and its public employee. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-104 (LexisNexis 2009); Hurst v. State, 698 P.2d 1130, 1132 (Wyo.1985). More specifically to the issues at hand, liability for the tortious conduct of peace officers may only be imposed for conduct while acting within the scope of their duties. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-112. In the instant case, not only is there no evidence that sexual assault of inmates was within the scope of the deputy's duties, it would be absurd to even suggest such a thing. Kanzler v. Renner, 937 P.2d 1337, 1345 (Wyo.1997) (sexual misconduct never within the scope of any public officer's duties). Beyond that, there is no evidence in the record that the sheriff, within the scope of his own duties, negligently hired or supervised the deputy, or failed to enact reasonable rules for the protection of inmates. In fact, the only evidence in regard to these accusations was that sexual contact between detention deputies and inmates violated the rules of the sheriff's office, that the deputy had been trained under those rules, that the sheriff had no knowledge of the deputy's conduct until after the fact, and that the sheriff immediately suspended and then terminated the deputy's employment. [¶ 22] In summary, neither the sheriff nor the county is liable for the tortious conduct of the deputy because that conduct did not occur within the deputy's scope of duties, and neither the sheriff nor the county is liable for the conduct of the sheriff, even though within the scope of his duties, because his conduct was not tortious.