 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Romero v. Schulze3/19/1999
tially be held vicariously liable for Dr. Schulze's negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The district court's order dismissing Romero's claims against the hospital is, therefore, also reversed.
LEHMAN, Chief Justice, Dissenting, with whom THOMAS, Justice, joins.
I respectfully Dissent. After analyzing Dr. Schulze's answer within the parameters of Wyoming's notice of pleading system, I am led inescapably to the Conclusion that the pleading was sufficiently specific to provide Ms. Romero with fair notice of Dr. Schulze's status as a government employee.
Rule 8 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:
"(b) Defenses: form of denials. -- "A party shall state in short and plain terms the party's defenses to each claim asserted....
...
(e) Pleading to be concise and direct; consistency.
(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are required."
Under the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, technical forms of pleadings are not required, and each averment of pleading should be simple, concise and direct. Harris v. Grizzle, 599 P.2d 580, 583 (Wyo. 1979); Guggenmos v. Tom Searl-Frank McCue, Inc., 481 P.2d 48, 51 (Wyo. 1971). Whether the specificity standard has been satisfied is to be determined in terms of whether the pleadings give fair notice to the opposing party and not whether it contains Conclusions. Id. Ignoring this legal framework, the majority writes: "In light of all the indications that Dr. Schulze was an independent contractor, he should have pleaded an affirmative defense clearly stating that, at the time of his alleged negligent conduct, he was an employee of the hospital." Maj. op. at 7. However, Dr. Schulze's answer contradicts the majority's assertion: "The Defendant, acting within the scope of his duties as an employee of Memorial Hospital of Carbon County, a governmental entity, affirmatively alleges immunity from tort liability...." (emphasis supplied). It is hard to imagine how this allegation could be simpler, more concise, or more direct.
I would hold that Dr. Schulze's answer was sufficient to put Ms. Romero on notice that he was acting as a government employee during her treatment and care. I would, therefore, hold that Ms. Romero's subsequent failure to provide notice of her claim within the two-year limitations period operates to bar her suit against both Dr. Schulze and the hospital. Cranston v. Weston County Weed and Pest Bd., 826 P.2d 251, 255 (Wyo. 1992); Duran v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Sweetwater County, 787 P.2d 971, 972-73 (Wyo. 1990).
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|