Wyoming Statutes

Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109 (2026)

Comparative fault.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)   As used in this section:
          (i) "Actor" means a person or other entity, including
the claimant, whose fault is determined to be a proximate cause
of the death, injury or damage, whether or not the actor is a
party to the litigation;

          (ii) "Claimant" means a natural person, including the
personal representative of a deceased person, or any legal
entity, including corporations, limited liability companies,
partnerships or unincorporated associations, and includes a
third party plaintiff and a counterclaiming defendant;

          (iii) "Defendant" means a party to the litigation
against whom a claim for damages is asserted, and includes third
party defendants. Where there is a counterclaim, the claimant
against whom the counterclaim is asserted is also a defendant;

          (iv) "Fault" includes acts or omissions, determined
to be a proximate cause of death or injury to person or
property, that are in any measure negligent, or that subject an
actor to strict tort or strict products liability, and includes
breach of warranty, assumption of risk and misuse or alteration
of a product;

          (v) "Injury to person or property," in addition to
bodily injury, includes, without limitation, loss of enjoyment
of life, emotional distress, pain and suffering, disfigurement,
physical or mental disability, loss of earnings or income,
damage to reputation, loss of consortium, loss of profits and
all other such claims and causes of action arising out of the
fault of an actor;

          (vi) "Wrongful death" means that cause of action
authorized by Wyoming statute to recover money damages when the
death of a person is caused by the fault of an actor such as
would have entitled the party injured to maintain an action to
recover damages if death had not ensued.

     (b) Contributory fault shall not bar a recovery in an
action by any claimant or the claimant's legal representative to
recover damages for wrongful death or injury to person or
property, if the contributory fault of the claimant is not more
than fifty percent (50%) of the total fault of all actors. Any
damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount
of fault attributed to the claimant.
     (c) Whether or not the claimant is free of fault, the
court shall:

          (i)   If a jury trial:

               (A) Direct the jury to determine the total
amount of damages sustained by the claimant without regard to
the percentage of fault attributed to the claimant, and the
percentage of fault attributable to each actor; and

               (B) Inform the jury of the consequences of its
determination of the percentage of fault.

          (ii) If a trial before the court without jury, make
special findings of fact, determining the total amount of
damages sustained by the claimant without regard to the
percentage of fault attributed to the claimant, and the
percentage of fault attributable to each actor.

     (d) The court shall reduce the amount of damages
determined under subsection (c) of this section in proportion to
the percentage of fault attributed to the claimant and enter
judgment against each defendant in the amount determined under
subsection (e) of this section.

     (e) Each defendant is liable only to the extent of that
defendant's proportion of the total fault determined under
paragraph (c)(i) or (ii) of this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 121 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Schneider Nat'l, Inc. v. Holland Hitch Co., 843 P.2d 561 (Wyo. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Schneider Nat'l, Inc. v. Holland Hitch Co., 843 P.2d 561 (Wyo. 1992). · cites it 102× “Complex questions of the interrelationship between comparative negligence tort reform legislation, Wyo.Stat. § 1-1-109 (1988), and indemnity, an area of common law which the United States Court of Appeals considered nebulous, are before the court.”

Phillips v. Duro-Last Roofing, Inc., 806 P.2d 834 (Wyo. 1991). · cites it 28× “The parties dispute whether Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109 (1988) should apply to reduce plaintiff's recovery to forty percent (40%) on each of his claims.”

Eiselein v. K-Mart, Inc., 868 P.2d 893 (Wyo. 1994). · cites it 24× “The District Court erred in applying the "Known and Obvious Danger" rule, thus negating Defendant's duty, and barring recovery, in contravention of Wyoming's Comparative Negligence Statute Section 1-1-109. After considering these issues, this court determined that resolution of…”

Jackson State Bank v. King, 844 P.2d 1093 (Wyo. 1993). · cites it 23× “This was the view adopted by the United States District Court, and King argues that decision manifested the correct application of § 1-1-109 to the case involved.”

Danculovich v. Brown, 593 P.2d 187 (Wyo. 1979). · cites it 10× “y consideration, not only because he found as a matter of law that there was insufficient evidence to submit the same, but also because he believed that the jury should and would consider it in the context of determining relative degrees of comparative negligence and not as a…”

Coryell v. Town of Pinedale, 745 P.2d 883 (Wyo. 1987). · cites it 19× “In accordance with the Wyoming law relating to comparative negligence pursuant to § 1-1-109, W.S. 1977, Caton was included as an actor in the verdict form with respect to whom negligence should be apportioned.”

Kirby Bldg. Sys. v. Mineral Explorations Co., 704 P.2d 1266 (Wyo. 1985). · cites it 14× “Under our statutory scheme, § 1-1-109, W.S. 1977 (comparative negligence), and §§ 1-1-110 through 1-1-113, W.”

Wardell v. McMillan, 844 P.2d 1052 (Wyo. 1992). · cites it 15× “he result, include: (1) use of prejudicial-partial individual trial jurors; *1073 (2) voir dire expansion to establish or foreclose existence of general juror prejudice by institutional advertising campaigns; (3) discovery privilege for the litigant's private physician; and (4)…”

Wood v. CRST Expedited, Inc., 419 P.3d 503 (Wyo. 2018). · cites it 10× “In particular, Wyoming's comparative negligence law apportions liability according to proportion of total fault, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-109 (e), and then defines fault to mean "acts or omissions, determined to be a proximate cause of death or injury to person or property.”

Anderson High. Signs & Supply, Inc. v. Close, 6 P.3d 123 (Wyo. 2000). · cites it 21× “The only question in this case is whether, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-109 (amended 1986), a defendant found to be fifty percent at fault is responsible for all or only his proportionate share of damages in a case in which the plaintiffs were found to be free from…”

McGarvin-Moberly Constr. Co. v. Welden, 897 P.2d 1310 (Wyo. 1995). · cites it 17× “the allocation of fault among all the parties pursuant to the Wyoming comparative negligence statute, W.S. § 1-1-109? The Weldens state these issues: A.”

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners Ex Rel. Teton Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't v. Bassett, 8 P.3d 1079 (Wyo. 2000). · cites it 12× “en instructed that police officers can be held liable to innocent bystanders who are injured when struck by the fleeing suspect, only if police conduct was extreme and outrageous; (2) whether the fleeing suspect who collided with appel-lees' car should have been included on the…”

Show all 121 citing cases →

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(a) — 7 cases

Schneider Nat'l, Inc. v. Holland Hitch Co., 843 P.2d 561 (Wyo. 1992). “Complex questions of the interrelationship between comparative negligence tort reform legislation, Wyo.Stat. § 1-1-109 (1988), and indemnity, an area of common law which the United States Court of Appeals considered nebulous, are before the court.”

Kirby Bldg. Sys. v. Mineral Explorations Co., 704 P.2d 1266 (Wyo. 1985). “Under our statutory scheme, § 1-1-109, W.S. 1977 (comparative negligence), and §§ 1-1-110 through 1-1-113, W.”

Eiselein v. K-Mart, Inc., 868 P.2d 893 (Wyo. 1994). “The District Court erred in applying the "Known and Obvious Danger" rule, thus negating Defendant's duty, and barring recovery, in contravention of Wyoming's Comparative Negligence Statute Section 1-1-109. After considering these issues, this court determined that resolution of…”

Jackson State Bank v. King, 844 P.2d 1093 (Wyo. 1993). “This was the view adopted by the United States District Court, and King argues that decision manifested the correct application of § 1-1-109 to the case involved.”

Sherman v. Platte Cnty., 642 P.2d 787 (Wyo. 1982).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(a)(i) — 2 cases

Wood v. CRST Expedited, Inc., 419 P.3d 503 (Wyo. 2018). “In particular, Wyoming's comparative negligence law apportions liability according to proportion of total fault, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-109 (e), and then defines fault to mean "acts or omissions, determined to be a proximate cause of death or injury to person or property.”

Alexander Vincent Ray Cave v. The State of Wyoming, 2022 WY 30 (Wyo. 2022).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(a)(iv) — 4 cases

Grandstaff v. Hawks, 36 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Pinnacle Bank v. Villa, 2004 WY 150 (Wyo. 2004).

Beavis Ex Rel. Beavis v. Campbell Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 2001 WY 32 (Wyo. 2001).

Alexander Vincent Ray Cave v. The State of Wyoming, 2022 WY 30 (Wyo. 2022).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(a)(v) — 1 case

Charles Bunning v. Ernest Romero, 2026 WY 40 (Wyo. 2026).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(b) — 7 cases

Bd. of Cty. Com'rs of Cty., Etc. v. Ridenour, 623 P.2d 1174 (Wyo. 1981).

McGarvin-Moberly Constr. Co. v. Welden, 897 P.2d 1310 (Wyo. 1995). “the allocation of fault among all the parties pursuant to the Wyoming comparative negligence statute, W.S. § 1-1-109? The Weldens state these issues: A.”

Melehes v. Wilson, 774 P.2d 573 (Wyo. 1989).

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Ridenour, 623 P.2d 1174 (Wyo. 1981).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(b)(1)(A) — 1 case

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(b)(1)(B) — 1 case

Haderlie v. Sondgeroth, 866 P.2d 703 (Wyo. 1993).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(b)(i) — 4 cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Colley, 871 P.2d 191 (Wyo. 1994).

Harmon v. Town of Afton, 745 P.2d 889 (Wyo. 1987).

Bd. of Cty. Com'rs of Cty., Etc. v. Ridenour, 623 P.2d 1174 (Wyo. 1981).

Burton v. Fisher Controls Co., 723 P.2d 1214 (Wyo. 1986).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(b)(i)(B) — 2 cases

Wardell v. McMillan, 844 P.2d 1052 (Wyo. 1992). “he result, include: (1) use of prejudicial-partial individual trial jurors; *1073 (2) voir dire expansion to establish or foreclose existence of general juror prejudice by institutional advertising campaigns; (3) discovery privilege for the litigant's private physician; and (4)…”

Furman v. Rural Elec. Co., 869 P.2d 136 (Wyo. 1994).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(b)(ii) — 1 case

Weaver v. Mitchell, 715 P.2d 1361 (Wyo. 1986).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(b)(iii) — 5 cases

Phillips v. Duro-Last Roofing, Inc., 806 P.2d 834 (Wyo. 1991). “The parties dispute whether Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109 (1988) should apply to reduce plaintiff's recovery to forty percent (40%) on each of his claims.”

Goggins v. Harwood, 704 P.2d 1282 (Wyo. 1985).

Bd. of Cty. Com'rs of Cty., Etc. v. Ridenour, 623 P.2d 1174 (Wyo. 1981).

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Ridenour, 623 P.2d 1174 (Wyo. 1981).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(c) — 4 cases

Steele v. Dillard, 486 S.E.2d 278 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997).

Alexander Vincent Ray Cave v. The State of Wyoming, 2022 WY 30 (Wyo. 2022).

Charles Bunning v. Ernest Romero, 2026 WY 40 (Wyo. 2026).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(c)(i)(A) — 1 case

Pinnacle Bank v. Villa, 2004 WY 150 (Wyo. 2004).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(c)(ii) — 1 case

Charles Bunning v. Ernest Romero, 2026 WY 40 (Wyo. 2026).

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(d) — 6 cases

McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992).

Melehes v. Wilson, 774 P.2d 573 (Wyo. 1989).

Coryell v. Town of Pinedale, 745 P.2d 883 (Wyo. 1987). “In accordance with the Wyoming law relating to comparative negligence pursuant to § 1-1-109, W.S. 1977, Caton was included as an actor in the verdict form with respect to whom negligence should be apportioned.”

— Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(e) — 2 cases

Fernanders v. Marks Constr. of South Carolina, Inc., 499 S.E.2d 509 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998).

Fernanders v. Marks Const. of Sc, Inc., 499 S.E.2d 509 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.