Court Opinion

ID: 9782047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 17:53:20.233332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:45.530239
License: Public Domain

VOIGT, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
[¶43] The doctrine of stare decisis requires us to follow Bertagnolli v. Louderback, 2003 WY 50, 67 P.3d 627 (Wyo.2003). At the same time, I am not convinced that we have not written into Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-104(a) (LexisNexis 2007) an exeeption to immunity that was not intended by the legislature in that we are blurring the distinction between "intentional" and "willful and wanton." The statutory phrase at issue is "unless the employees intentionally act to ecause physical harm or injury to the injured employee." (Emphasis added.) It appears to me that the word "intentionally" applies both to the word "act" and to the word "cause." If that was not the legislature's intent, the phrase would read "unless the employees intentionally act and cause physical harm or injury to the injured employee." The words "act to cause" suggest a specific intent that harm follow. The definition of "willful and wanton misconduct" quoted from Bertagnolli in 17 of the majority opinion, contemplates an intent to act, but not an intent to harm.