The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed a defense verdict in a negligence action brought by a father against his son and daughter-in-law

On Friday, August 16, 2019, Mike was at his son and daughter-in-law’s house when he fell and was injured. Mike had spent the day doing yard work around his house, working most of the morning before taking a break around noon to have lunch and a beer. He stopped again around 3:00 p.m. for a snack and another beer. At around 5:00 p.m., Mike cleaned up and had a light meal before heading to his son’s house to watch the fireworks. He packed a cooler with six to eight “tall boys” and drove with his wife to his son’s house.

Mike arrived around 8:50 p.m., ate dinner, had anywhere from a few sips of beer to two full beers,2 and followed his wife, daughter-in-law, and son onto the deck for the fireworks display. As Mike stepped onto the deck, he took two steps to the right and stepped off the deck which was about ten inches above the ground. Mike testified something
trapped his foot once he hit the ground causing him to fall forward. As he fell, he felt two pops in his ankle and foot, then landed forcefully on his right shoulder. Mike was taken to the hospital via ambulance where he was instructed to see a specialist for both injuries. A short time later, Mike had surgeries to repair his foot and install a partial shoulder
replacement. Mike filed suit alleging his son negligently maintained his yard which caused his injury.

1 Because the parties share the same last name, we refer to them by their preferred first names.
2 The amount of beer Mike consumed is disputed. Mike’s testimony is he had one sip of beer but Ben and Kallie contend he had one and a half to two beers.

Evidentiary issues did not warrant overturning the verdict

A party-opponent admission is not absolutely admissible and must still survive scrutiny under our other rules of evidence. The statements at issue did not survive this scrutiny and the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring the statements. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence related to Mike’s alcohol consumption. We affirm.

(Mike Frisch)