Board of County Commissioners of Teton County v. Bassett

Wyoming Supreme Court · Torts

TortsNegligenceComparative FaultProximate CauseQualified ImmunityPolice Pursuit Liabilitycomparative faultintentional tortfeasor

Facts

Police pursued Steve Ortega from Dubois at high speeds after determining he was wanted in two jurisdictions and considered armed and dangerous. Officers established a roadblock on U.S. Highway 89 north of Jackson, while appellees Coziah and Bassett drove toward Jackson and were not warned of the danger as they approached. At the roadblock, officers gestured for appellees to pass through just ahead of Ortega, who was traveling at 100 miles per hour or more and crashed into their vehicle after it cleared the roadblock. Appellees sued, alleging negligence in pursuing Ortega, failing to warn them, and operating the roadblock.

Issue

Whether the fleeing suspect Ortega, whose conduct was willful and wanton or intentional, had to be included as an actor on the verdict form for comparative fault under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-109; whether the jury should have been instructed under DeWald that police pursuit conduct is not the proximate cause of third-party injuries unless the officers' conduct was extreme or outrageous; and whether Sergeant Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity.

Rule

Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-109, 'fault' is broad enough to require comparison of willful conduct with negligence, so a willful or intentional actor must be included in fault apportionment. In cases where police pursue a fleeing violator and the violator injures a third party in an accident not involving the officer's vehicle, the officer's pursuit is not the proximate cause unless the circumstances indicate extreme or outrageous conduct by the officer. State-law qualified immunity for peace officers requires, among other things, discretionary executive-policy action; operational decisions do not qualify.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cheyenne, officers pursued Nolan Fry after he robbed a convenience store and sped onto a state highway. Fry swerved into oncoming traffic and eventually slammed into Tara Mendez's car after officers had allegedly mishandled traffic control at an intersection. Tara sued the city officers for negligence, and the trial judge refused to place Fry on the verdict form because his conduct was intentional.

Under the governing rule, was the trial judge correct to exclude Fry from comparative fault apportionment?

Explanation. The majority held that the statute's use of the broader term "fault" requires comparison of all species of culpable conduct, including willful conduct, with negligence. Excluding the fleeing intentional actor would undermine proportional liability by forcing remaining defendants to absorb fault not allocated to the principal wrongdoer. (Derived from Board of County Commissioners of Teton County v. Bassett (n.d.).)