## Facts

- Nanette Holbrook left her car unattended in her private residential driveway with the engine running and doors unlocked while she briefly went inside to retrieve her purse.
- Holbrook was inside for about three minutes and, upon returning, found the car missing and immediately called 911 to report the theft.
- Holbrook testified she saw no suspicious persons near her driveway before going inside.
- Colbey Emms, a methamphetamine user, stole Holbrook’s vehicle.
- Police later located Emms driving the stolen car; he attempted to flee, leading to a high-speed chase.
- During the chase, Emms collided with a vehicle driven by Katrina Lucero, seriously injuring Lucero and her two minor children.
- Lucero and her children sued Holbrook for negligence, alleging Holbrook breached a duty of reasonable care by leaving the vehicle running and unsecured, and that this conduct proximately caused their injuries.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Holbrook, ruling Holbrook owed no duty and that her conduct was not the proximate cause of the collision.

## Issues

1. Whether Wyoming motor-vehicle statutes regulating unattended vehicles or parking imposed a statutory duty on Holbrook under these facts.
2. Whether, under Wyoming common law, Holbrook owed a duty to members of the public to protect them from injuries caused by a third party’s criminal theft and subsequent misuse of her vehicle.
3. Whether summary judgment for Holbrook was proper given the negligence elements of duty and causation.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Holbrook.
- The court held Holbrook’s conduct was not prohibited by the cited statutes and therefore did not breach any statutory duty of care.
- The court held Holbrook owed no common-law duty to Lucero and her children to protect them from harm caused by Emms’s criminal conduct.
- Because duty is essential to negligence, the absence of duty was dispositive; the court did not need to resolve proximate cause in depth.

## Legal Principles

- A negligence claim fails absent a legally recognized duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
- Statutory duty (including negligence per se) requires that the defendant’s conduct fall within the statute’s prohibitions as properly construed; courts will not extend statutory language beyond its scope to create a duty.
- Under Wyoming common law, a person generally has no duty to protect others from the criminal acts of third parties absent a recognized special basis for such a duty; independent criminal conduct may break the chain between the defendant’s antecedent conduct and the plaintiff’s injury.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the plaintiff cannot establish an essential negligence element (such as duty) as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The Wyoming Supreme Court concluded that leaving a running, unlocked vehicle in a private driveway did not violate the cited statutes and did not create a common-law duty to protect the public from a thief’s later criminal driving; summary judgment for the vehicle owner was therefore affirmed.


Lucero v. Holbrook, 2012 WY 152, 288 P.3d 1228 (Wyo. 2012)