Court Opinion

ID: 9570024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:19:25.821376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:40.814484
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Justice,
specially concurring.
This case is one more instance of the often recurring factual events of a police chase of a well-known, previously convicted drunk driver, this time driving through the town of Pinedale, not unexpectedly coming to a tragic climax when the chased driver loses control of the vehicle and kills an innocent victim unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The adversely decided jury issue of police auto-chase negligence presents a broad array of injured and innocent-victim recovery concerns. Compare DeWald v. State, Wyo., 719 P.2d 643 (1986) with Zevitz, Police Civil Liability and the Law of High Speed Pursuit, 79 Marq.L.Rev. 2 (1987); Comment, High-Speed Pursuits: Police Officer and Municipal Liability for Accidents Involving the Pursued and an Innocent Third Party, 16 Seaton Hall 101 (1986); Alpert and Anderson, The Most Deadly Force: Police Pursuits, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 1 (March 1986); Koonz and Regan, “Hot Pursuit” — Proving Police Negligence, Trial, p. 65 (December, 1985); Costan, Hot Pursuit: The Innocent Victim’s Remedy, CTLA Forum, *887Vol. XVI, No. 6, p. 204 (1986).1 That specific issue does not come here as an appeal question, since direct objection was not taken to the negligence instruction given and the adverse jury verdict on the instruction settled the result for appeal review. Burton v. Fisher Controls Company, Wyo., 728 P.2d 1214 (1986).
The subject to which my concern is consequently directed by this appeal and this court’s opinion is the “effect of the verdict” instruction as contendably inaccurate in fact although technically correct in stating the law as raising the difference between “who is liable” and “who will pay.”
This court accurately portrays the legislative action in denial of the Wisconsin rule prohibition against informing the jury of the consequence of its verdict in comparative-negligence cases in conjunction with the 50-50 denied-recovery negligence-assessment posture. Smith, Comparative Negligence Problems with the Special Verdict: Informing the Jury of the Legal Effects of Their Answers, 10 Land & Water L.Rev. 199 (1975). The Wyoming comparative-negligence statute originally enacted as Ch. 28, S.L. of Wyoming, 1973 made no provision when the “not as great as — fifty-fifty” plaintiff-loses test for recovery was adopted in the comprehensively amended and debated legislative procedure. H.B. 94, Digest of Senate and House Journals 1973, p. 626. The subject of an instruction to inform the jury of the consequence of the verdict first came into Wyoming law as a part of the first-generation medical-malpractice crisis legislation, Ch. 10, S.L. of Wyoming 1976. Comparative negligence was explicitly included in the recodification of Title 1 in Ch. 188, S.L. of Wyoming 1977, where § 1-1-109, W.S.1977 reads:
“(b) The court may, and when requested by any party shall:
* * * * * *
“(iii) Inform the jury of the consequences of its determination of the percentage of negligence,”
and § 1-1-114, W.S.1977 states:
“ * * * Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any party from arguing to the court or jury the amount of his claim in money. In all cases the court shall inform the jury of the consequences of its verdict.”
Through both this statutory development and the corresponding litigation, settlement has occurred in establishment of the requirement that an accurate instruction should be given on the effect of the verdict.2
My concern in this case arises from the conception of definable legislative intent that the jury should be permitted to know with accuracy what the effect of their verdict might be. To the contrary, appellant here contends that the communicated information was “half truth and in misleading form,” and essentially untrue. She argues that apportionment of liability among actors is not necessarily the same or may be substantially different from who will pay, namely the insurance carrier as the real party in interest in money risk. To say, even though the obligation rests with insurance companies, that the town or its police officers would pay is factually untrue and is wrong. I agree.
In procedural agreement with the court, I specially concur rather than dissent because the error that I find in the record in final-argument comments is unavailable on appeal in absence of the necessary trial objection. See Joly v. Safeway Stores, *888Inc., Wyo., 502 P.2d 362 (1972), and cases cited in the majority opinion.
In jury-instruction conference, counsel for appellant stated:
« * * * rpjjg p]ajnyff objects to number 9 and, specifically, the plaintiff objects to the second to the last paragraph stating that ‘when the concurring negligence of two or more persons causes an injury, each person is wholly liable to the plaintiff regardless of the relative degree to which each contributes to the injury.’ That’s a definition of joint and several liability. Joint and several liability is clearly a rule of law and it has nothing to do with the jury deliberations nor should it. In fact, it’s not even the Court’s decision who pays the judgment. As I understand the law, it’s the plaintiff’s decision who she may pursue in the event that she gets a judgment.
“The reason that we think that this particular paragraph is prejudicial to the plaintiff is that we understand that the defendants are going to argue joint and several liability at length to the jury, and the argument is going to go something like this: If you find, Mr. Frey or Mr. Farnsworth negligent even if it’s only two percent, and the judgment, say, is five hundred thousand, then the police officer is going to have to pay the entire judgment, and that is not fair. And what the jury is going to be asked to do is either compromise on the negligence or come in with a zero percent negligence finding on Frey and Farnsworth or to reduce the judgment because of the joint and several liability.
“I would also point out to the Court that that paragraph is not true. And the reason it’s not true is that Frey and Farnsworth or the Town of Pinedale will not have to pay the entire judgment in any event because all three party defendants to this lawsuit are insured.
“And I would request that the Court instruct the jury there is insurance in this case, if the Court is going to instruct on joint and several liability. It’s a question of law.”3 (Emphasis added.)
No motion in limine was then made or other objection taken to final argument when one of the defendants was persuasively represented by clearly understandable and previously suggested advocacy:
“Now, the Court has instructed you that you are not to compromise a sincere conviction. If you are convinced one way by the evidence, if you have a sincere conviction, then don’t compromise your principles. And the reason that we’re here because of that principle is that the law in Wyoming negligence, you know, a little bit negligent is like being a little bit pregnant. There’s no such thing.
“There is one Instruction, number 9, that contains one sentence that is absolutely dynamite. It says, ‘when the concurring negligence of two or more persons causes an injury, each person is wholly liable to the plaintiff regardless of their relative degree to which each contributes to the injury.’ That doesn’t sound too dangerous, does it? What it means, ladies and gentlemen, is that if you find either Frey or Farnsworth negligent one percent and Pat Catón 99 percent, then Frey and Farnsworth and the Town can be made to pay the entire amount of damage that you found. For instance, if you find five hundred thousand damages and one percent negligent on the part of Officer Frey, the Town can be made not to pay five thousand dollars, it can be made to pay the whole amount. Five hundred thousand dollars. And by this I’m not suggesting that five hundred thousand dollars is even a figure you should consider in this case.
*889“Plaintiff’s economist, Doctor Evenson, had six charts here. He can show you where the loss is anywhere from four hundred eighty-nine thousand up to nine hundred thousand dollars, and I’m sure if we gave him additional time and money that he could prepare six more charts showing a range anywhere from zero up to five hundred thousand dollars. We’ll rely on your own good common sense to determine what the damages are in this case if, in fact, you do find there is some negligence.
“There is in this case also another effect of finding a little bit negligent which, as far as I’m concerned and my clients are concerned, is even more important. Now, the crime doctor from Florida does not have to take compensation of a police officer. He can do other things for a living. He’s a good writer and he makes money from doing that. Win Farns-worth and Jim Frey do not do that. Their living and their livelihood and their professions and their careers are law enforcement.” (Emphasis added.)
With available insurance coverages from which defenses were undoubtedly being funded, this statement of who would pay, or the intrinsic emotional argument of career risk of the police officers is neither within the ambit of § 1-1-109 or § 1-1-114, or facially true. I cannot read the intent or content to permit and approve statutory attribution of payment responsibility as authority to misstate financial obligations to the jury. It should not be a statutory license to lie.
However, in the absence of trial objection, I specially concur.

. For a current discussion of liability beyond the city limits, see Larrikin v. Brooks, La., 498 So.2d 1068 (1986), and Note, Larrikin v. Brooks: Expanding Municipal Tort Liability Beyond the City Limits, 61 Tul.L.Rev. 1556 (1987).

. In the second-generation medical-malpractice crisis, the comparative-negligence statute, Ch. 24, § 1, S.L. of Wyoming 1986, § 1-1-109, W.S. 1977 was rewritten to permit recovery on a 50-50 plaintiff-wins negligence test, and:
'"(b) The court may, and when requested by any party shall:
* * * * * *
"(B) Inform the jury of the consequences of its determination of the percentage of fault.” The new law further provides that each defendant is liable only for that portion of the total dollar amount as may be attributable to his fault.

. The court prophetically and dispositively observed:
“The objection is denied for the following reasons: First of all, the record should show that the Court is in full and complete agreement with the plaintiffs argument. However, the Court believes the status of Wyoming law at this time, even though archaic and wrong, is as stated in that Instruction. It's a part of the Pattern Instructions, and I think it’s about to be changed by the Wyoming Legislature, but nonetheless, that’s the law and the Court's going to give it. All right. That's been taken care of.”