Court Opinion

ID: 9551121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:48:01.910142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:05.924245
License: Public Domain

BROWN, Justice,
specially concurring.
The dissent brings to our attention the fact that Jack Oakley, a named defendant in the complaint, “was not included on that portion of the verdict form which allocated the percentage of negligence.” What is said in the dissent appears to be on the assumption that the record discloses evidence of Mr. Oakley’s negligence.
In their complaint appellees alleged that “The negligence of the Defendant Oakley, while acting within the scope of his duties as an employee of the Wyoming State Highway Department, directly and proximately caused the injuries of the plaintiffs.” They also allege several specific negligent circumstances implicating Mr. Oakley. An examination of the record, however, reveals that there was no evidence that Mr. Oakley was negligent.1 Interestingly, Mr. Oakley was not even on duty the day of the accident, although after the accident he was called to put sand on the road.
Before a person can properly be placed on the form of verdict allocating percentage of negligence there must be some evidence of his negligence. ABC Builders, Inc. v. Phillips, Wyo., 632 P.2d 925 (1981). See also, Klemme v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, 103 Cal.App.3d 640, 163 Cal.Rptr. 109 (1980).
In the absence of a showing to the contrary, an appellate court will presume that the proceedings in the lower court were correct. 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error, § 1533, p. 1025 (1958). The record in this ease does not indicate whether or not the court and counsel considered including the name of Jack Oakley on the verdict form. We must assume that the court and counsel were aware of the cases cited in the dissent and that Jack Oakley was not on the verdict form because there was no evidence of his negligence. In the absence of a showing to the contrary we cannot assume that Jack Oakley was left off the verdict form because the court and counsel knew not the law or because of inadvertence.
An allegation of negligence in the complaint standing alone is insufficient. Fur*17thermore, I do not believe that it is of any consequence that Jack Oakley made what appears to be a nuisance settlement with appellees before trial.
I agree that this case should be affirmed.

. Counsel do not contend that Mr. Oakley was negligent, and whether or not his name should have been on the verdict was not an issue at trial nor on appeal.