 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lavatai v. State10/13/2005
Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, VOIGT, JJ., and YOUNG, DJ.
GOLDEN, J., files the majority opinion of the Court; KITE, J., files a specially concurring opinion.
[ ] The district court granted summary judgment to the State of Wyoming and its snowplow operator (State appellees) in a governmental claims act personal injury negligence action because the claimant's (Seanoa F. Lavatai) notice of governmental claim, filed before the action was commenced, did not meet the constitutional requirement that the claimant sign the written claim and certify it under penalty of perjury. Beaulieu v. Florquist, 2001 WY 33, 12-18, 20 P.3d 521, 526-27 (Wyo. 2001) (Beaulieu I); see also Wooster v. Carbon County Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2005 WY 47, 109 P.3d 893 (Wyo. 2005); Bell v. Schell, 2004 WY 153, 10-11, 16-36, 101 P.3d 465, 468, 469-76 (Wyo. 2004); Yoak v. Ide, 2004 WY 32, 6, 86 P.3d 872, 874 (Wyo. 2004); and Beaulieu v. Florquist, 2004 WY 31, 6-15, 86 P.3d 863, 866-69 (Wyo. 2004) (Beaulieu II). In this appeal, Lavatai asks this Court to adopt a substantial compliance exception to the constitutional requirement. Failing this Court's adoption of that exception, Lavatai asks this Court, on grounds of fairness and equity under the facts of this case, to relieve him of strict compliance with the constitutional requirement because of the State appellees' failure, in the period leading up to the summary judgment proceeding, timely to reveal in what specific way his governmental claim did not comply with the constitutional requirement. For the reasons stated below, this Court shall not relieve him of strict compliance with that constitutional requirement. This Court affirms the district court's summary judgment in favor of the State appellees.
ISSUES
[ ] Lavatai presents this statement of the issues:
1. Did the certification of Appellant's deposition before a notary public under penalty of perjury, which deposition contains the same facts as in earlier filed governmental claim, constitute substantial compliance when the certification was signed by Appellant and served upon the State of Wyoming through its counsel prior to the governmental claim bar date?
2. Does equity and the fair administration of justice preclude the State of Wyoming from asserting the Article 16, § 7 defense under the narrow facts of this case, including the State's failure to fulfill the mandatory duty imposed by the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure to timely, fully and completely answer interrogatories specifically designed to discover the basis of the State's affirmative defense so that any defects in the government claim notice could be cured prior to the running of the governmental claim bar date?
The State appellees present these issues:
1. Did Appellant's notice of claim meet the requirements of Wyo. Const. art. 16 § 7 and, thus, constitute a valid notice of claim?
2. Is the doctrine of substantial compliance available to Appellant to excuse his failure to comply with the requirements of Wyo. Const. art. 16 § 7?
3. Is any equitable doctrine available to Appellant to excuse his non-compliance with the requirement that a valid governmental claim be filed with the State Auditor or other appropriate official within two years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission as required by Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-113 and the decision of this Court in Beaulieu v. Florquist, 2001 WY 33, 20 P.3d 521 (Wyo. 2001)?
4. Was the district court correct in granting summary judgment based on its finding that Appellant failed to timely file a valid notice of claim and that Appellant's attempt to "cure" his defective notice of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|