Opinion ID: 2330330
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Further Definition of Inherent Risk

Text: [¶ 45] Appellant also argues that the Court erred in failing to give her proposed instructions defining characteristic, intrinsic, and integral, which are words used by the legislature to define the term inherent risk. The Court would first note that it must look at the instructions as a whole to determine whether they were adequate. Addakai, ¶ 15, 31 P.3d at 73. Neither party designated the instructions that were given as part of the record on appeal, and they are therefore not before us. A party seeking review of a district court's decision must provide an adequate record for appellate review, and failure to do so would justify this Court in declining to review this issue at all. Nish v. Schaefer, 2006 WY 85, ¶ 21, 138 P.3d 1134, 1142 (Wyo.2006); Meyer v. Rodabaugh, 982 P.2d 1242, 1244 n. 1 (Wyo.1999). [¶ 46] However, it is possible to glean from the record and from what appears to be agreement in the briefs that the district court instructed the jury on the statutory definition of the term inherent risk. As already stated, that term is defined by the Recreation Safety Act as characteristic of, intrinsic to, or an integral part of any sport or recreational opportunity. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-122(a)(i). This Court has previously held that it is not necessary to define a term that does not have a technical or legal meaning different from that of its common meaning. Masias v. State, 2010 WY 81, ¶ 25, 233 P.3d 944, 951 (Wyo.2010); Ewing v. State, 2007 WY 78, ¶¶ 9-10, 157 P.3d 943, 946-47 (Wyo.2007). [¶ 47] The legislature has defined the term inherent risk. It used words which have a common meaning to do so. The district court did not err in declining to further define the language the legislature chose.