Court Opinion

ID: 9533984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:36:03.529553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:15.458724
License: Public Domain

GUTHRIE, Justice,
with whom Mc-CLINTOCK, Justice, joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority opinion and the result thereof only, however, insofar as it *626is based upon a construction of § 27-54, W.S.1957, 1973 Cum.Supp., which would exclude a fellow employee from exemption from action for his tortious conduct. In my opinion such fellow employee is firmly embraced in the phrase, “person other than the employer.” There is sufficient authority for such holding as set out in the A.L. R.3d citation which appears in the majority opinion, and particularly in the case of Ransom v. Haner, Alaska, 362 P.2d 282, 287, which view is based upon a most exhaustive footnote.
This view is further buttressed by an examination of §§ 27-50 and 27-78, W.S. 1957, also cited in the majority opinion, both of which sections speak of the exemption from suit as being applicable to “any employer contributing,” and the use of the words “person other than the employer” demonstrates a legislative distinction.
The writer does not interpret the case of In re Byrne, 53 Wyo. 519, 86 P.2d 1095, as having resolved this matter.
The sole issue framed in the briefs and arguments of the parties is evidenced by the following statements from those briefs wherein appellant said:
“The real question before the court is whether a co-employee is a third person within the meaning of § 27-54,”
and the appellee concurring in this view states the following in his brief:
“We, the appellee, say he was a ‘person other than the employee’ under our statute.”
It is hard to conceive a more clearly framed and submitted matter. The writer dissents most vigorously from any and all expressions in the majority opinion which hold or seem to hold that any other interpretation of the disputed section would be in violation of Art. 10, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. I do not believe this excursion into the field of constitutional law proper -when it is clearly without the issues presented. It is further clearly vio-lative of an oft-repeated rule of this court, which the writer has always believed was accepted and universally followed, i. e., a constitutional question should not be passed upon unless it is presented by a question specifically phrased and completely argued, Doe v. Burk, Wyo., 513 P.2d 643, 645, and cases cited. Particularly do I feel there was a compelling reason to have omitted such discussion in this case because it conceivably will probably affect a large number of employers and employees within this state.