Pinnacle Bank v. Villa

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming answered two certified questions concerning a slip-and-fall on ice in front of Pinnacle Bank. It held that a Worland municipal ordinance requiring property owners to remove snow and ice established the applicable standard of care, superseding the common-law natural-accumulation rules for determining the bank's duty. The court also held that the State of Wyoming could be included in the comparative-fault analysis despite its governmental immunity, provided there was competent evidence of fault.

Holdings

1. The City of Worland ordinance established the applicable standard of care and imposed an affirmative duty on Pinnacle Bank to keep the adjoining sidewalk safe and clear and to remove snow, ice, slush, mud, and other impediments with reasonable dispatch. The ordinance controls over Wyoming's general common-law rules concerning natural accumulations of snow and ice.
2. The negligence per se doctrine should not be used to determine Pinnacle Bank's negligence under the ordinance.
3. The ordinance eliminated the need to determine whether the snow and ice accumulation was natural or unnatural, whether Pinnacle Bank created or aggravated the hazard, whether the bank knew or should have known of it, or whether the condition was substantially more dangerous than its natural state. The open-and-obvious-danger rule remained relevant to Villa's comparative fault, including whether she kept a proper lookout.
4. The State of Wyoming could be included in the jury's comparative-fault analysis and on the verdict form even though it was immune from suit, provided there was competent evidence that the State was at fault.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the City of Worland ordinance established the applicable duty and standard of care for Pinnacle Bank, displacing Wyoming's common-law natural-accumulation rules for snow and ice.
2. Whether the open-and-obvious-danger rule and natural-accumulation principles remained relevant to determining Villa's comparative fault.
3. Whether the fault of the State of Wyoming could be included in the comparative-fault analysis and on the verdict form even though the State was immune from suit.

Disposition

affirmed