 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hodges v. Lewis & Lewis10/14/2005
Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
[ ] Antoinette Hodges appeals from the district court's order dismissing her personal injury case against Lewis & Lewis, Inc. (Lewis). After a bench trial, the district court found Ms. Hodges was not entitled, under Wyoming's comparative negligence statute, to recover for her injuries because she was more than fifty percent (50%) at fault. Earlier in the case, Lewis had missed a deadline for responding to Ms. Hodges' requests for admission, resulting in admissions under W.R.C.P. 36(a) of the matters contained in the requests. One of the requests asked Lewis to admit that Ms. Hodges did not contribute to her injuries. Prior to the trial, the district court allowed Lewis to amend its admissions in order to deny the request. Ms. Hodges claims that the district court erred by granting Lewis' request to amend or withdraw the admissions and allowing it to respond to the requests.
[ ] We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Lewis to respond to Ms. Hodges' requests for admission and, therefore, affirm.
ISSUES
[ ] Ms. Hodges offers the following issues for our consideration:
ISSUE ONE
Did the District Court have discretion to grant a "renewed" motion filed more than two (2) months after it was deemed denied by Rule 6(c)(2) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure?
ISSUE TWO
Did the District Court have discretion to extend Appellee's time to file a "renewed" motion fifty-two (52) days after the time to serve papers allowed by Rule 6(c)(2) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure?
ISSUE THREE
Did the District Court err when it considered issues of comparative fault against Appellant after, under the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, Appellee was deemed to have admitted that Appellant "did not contribute to her injuries . . ."?
Lewis responds with an extensive list of issues:
1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting Appellee Lewis and Lewis, Inc.'s ("Lewis and Lewis") second discovery motion filed on June 17, 2004;
2. Whether Appellant Antoinette Hodges ("Hodges") is entitled to a second trial to have admissions deemed admitted as evidence, when counsel for Appellant Hodges did not seek to have any such alleged admissions entered as evidence during the first trial;
3. Whether Appellant Hodges, who appeals from an order on a motion determined within 28 days of its filing, may rely on W.R.C.P. 6(c)(2), which provides that a motion not determined within 90 days is deemed denied;
4. Whether Appellant Antoinette Hodges has waived any argument based on the law of the case doctrine by failing to raise that issue both in the district court and in this Court;
5. Even if Appellant Hodges has not waived the law of the case doctrine, whether the doctrine would apply to prevent the proper filing of the second discovery motion;
6. Whether W.R.C.P. 6(c)(2), the deemed denied rule, trumps a district court's inherent power to issue rulings on discovery motions;
7. Whether the granting of Appellant Hodges' appeal would violate due process; and
8. Assuming arguendo that the district court abused its discretion in granting Appellee Lewis and Lewis' second discovery motion, whether the trial court's final order dismissing Hodges' complaint was clearly erroneous.
FACTS
[ ] For the purposes of this appeal, the underlying facts of the case are not disputed. Ms. Hodges worked as a traffic flagger on a highway construction project in Fa
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.
|
|