Wringer v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Wringer v. United States

10 F.3d 809, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 36245, 1993 WL 468720

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 12, 1993

Docket92-15984

StatusUnpublished

This text of 10 F.3d 809 (Wringer v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wringer v. United States, 10 F.3d 809, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 36245, 1993 WL 468720 (9th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

10 F.3d 809

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Jerome WRINGER, Personal Representative of the Estate of
Raymond Russell Wringer, deceased; Jerome W. Wringer,
individually as a surviving parent; Linda L. Howard, as a
surviving parent, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-15984.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 5, 1993.*
Decided Nov. 12, 1993.

Before: TANG, TROTT and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

The facts of this case demonstrate without doubt and as a matter of law that Raymond Russell Wringer was a "recreational user" of the Prescott National Forest when he died. See Ariz.Rev.Sat.Ann. Sec. 33-1551(B)(2) (1990); State v. Wise, 671 P.2d 909, 911 n. 3 (Ariz.1983). The controlling recreational use statute bars recovery when the government's alleged "failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition use, or activity" was not "wilful or malicious." Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 1551(C). Wilful conduct is " 'intentional, wrongful conduct, done either with knowledge that serious injury to another probably will result or with a wanton and reckless disregard of the possible results.' " Miller v. United States, 945 F.2d 1464, 1467 (9th Cir.1991). We have examined the record with care and concluded that no reasonable jury could conclude the failure to warn was wilful or malicious. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Thus, summary judgment was proper. The district court's assessment was correct.

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

10 F.3d 809

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Jerome WRINGER, Personal Representative of the Estate of
Raymond Russell Wringer, deceased; Jerome W. Wringer,
individually as a surviving parent; Linda L. Howard, as a
surviving parent, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-15984.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 5, 1993.*
Decided Nov. 12, 1993.

Before: TANG, TROTT and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

The facts of this case demonstrate without doubt and as a matter of law that Raymond Russell Wringer was a "recreational user" of the Prescott National Forest when he died. See Ariz.Rev.Sat.Ann. Sec. 33-1551(B)(2) (1990); State v. Wise, 671 P.2d 909, 911 n. 3 (Ariz.1983). The controlling recreational use statute bars recovery when the government's alleged "failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition use, or activity" was not "wilful or malicious." Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 1551(C). Wilful conduct is " 'intentional, wrongful conduct, done either with knowledge that serious injury to another probably will result or with a wanton and reckless disregard of the possible results.' " Miller v. United States, 945 F.2d 1464, 1467 (9th Cir.1991). We have examined the record with care and concluded that no reasonable jury could conclude the failure to warn was wilful or malicious. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Thus, summary judgment was proper. The district court's assessment was correct.

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 F.3d 809, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 36245, 1993 WL 468720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wringer-v-united-states-ca9-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack