Wyoming's Supreme Court went further than almost any other state in Clarke v. Beckwith, 858 P.2d 293 (Wyo. 1993) — abolishing the entire invitee/licensee/trespasser trichotomy and replacing it with a unified duty of reasonable care for ALL entrants, including trespassers, with visitor status as a jury factor rather than a legal threshold.
Wyoming abolished the entire traditional premises liability classification system in Clarke v. Beckwith, 858 P.2d 293 (Wyo. 1993), establishing a single duty to "act as a reasonable man in maintaining his property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances." This is the most plaintiff-favorable premises liability framework in the country — even trespassers receive the benefit of a reasonable care analysis rather than the willful-or-wanton floor that most states impose. Visitor status remains a factor the jury considers in assessing reasonableness, but it does not determine duty as a matter of law. Open-and-obvious hazards are not an automatic bar: under Wyoming's 51% comparative fault bar (§ 1-1-109), they go to fault allocation rather than duty elimination. The Wyoming Governmental Claims Act under § 1-39-113 imposes a two-year written claim deadline for injuries on government property, followed by at least one year to file suit.
Wyoming's four-year personal injury SOL under Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105(a)(iv) is generous — but it says nothing about how long evidence lasts. Businesses in Cheyenne, Casper, and Jackson overwrite surveillance camera footage within 24 to 72 hours as part of routine recording-loop protocols. Incident reports are sometimes "misplaced" after a claim is anticipated. Maintenance logs showing prior notice of the same hazardous condition — the most powerful evidence in any Wyoming premises case — are internal documents that vanish without a formal preservation demand. Wyoming's Clarke v. Beckwith unified standard focuses the analysis on whether the owner acted reasonably under all the circumstances, and the maintenance and notice record is the primary evidence that answers that question.
Clarke v. Beckwith, 858 P.2d 293 (Wyo. 1993) abolished the entire invitee/licensee/trespasser classification system in Wyoming. The Wyoming Supreme Court established a single duty of reasonable care for all who enter property — including trespassers — with visitor status remaining only as a factor the jury considers when evaluating reasonableness. This is the broadest premises liability standard in the United States. Even a trespasser in Wyoming receives the benefit of the reasonable care analysis; the defense cannot automatically defeat the claim by establishing that the victim lacked permission to be on the property. The specific facts of how foreseeability, burden of remediation, and the parties' relationship bear on reasonableness are what the jury decides — not a predetermined legal rule based on visitor status.
Open-and-obvious hazards in Wyoming do not automatically bar a premises liability claim. Under the Clarke framework, an open-and-obvious condition is a factor in assessing reasonableness and comparative fault — it can reduce the victim's recovery through Wyoming's 51% bar under § 1-1-109, but it does not eliminate the owner's duty as a matter of law. A hazard that was visible to the victim can still support liability if the owner should have reasonably remediated it given foreseeability, burden, and the circumstances. Wyoming's 51% bar means the critical line is whether the victim's fault from encountering an open-and-obvious hazard, combined with other fault, reaches or exceeds 51%. Below that threshold, recovery is reduced but not eliminated.
Falls on Wyoming government property — WYDOT-maintained highways, county roads, state parks, and municipal facilities — require navigating the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. Under § 1-39-113, written claim presentation to the appropriate government entity must be completed within two years of the act, error, or omission. After claim disposition, a claimant has at least one additional year to file suit. The two-year written claim deadline runs inside the four-year PI SOL — miss the written claim deadline and the government defendant is permanently eliminated regardless of how much time remains on the general statute. Wyoming's harsh winter climate, with its ice, freeze-thaw cycles, and wind-driven snow accumulation, makes government-maintained walkways, stairways, and public entrances recurring sources of serious slip and fall injuries.
Legal Information Notice
The legal information on this page is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws change, and every case is different. Always consult with a licensed attorney in your state to verify the current law and how it applies to your specific situation.
Four years from the date of injury under Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105(a)(iv). For falls on government property, the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act under § 1-39-113 requires written claim presentation within two years of the act or omission, followed by at least one year to file suit after disposition. Missing the two-year government claim deadline permanently bars the government-entity claim regardless of how much time remains on the four-year PI SOL.
Not as a legal threshold. Wyoming abolished the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser classification system in Clarke v. Beckwith, 858 P.2d 293 (Wyo. 1993). All entrants — including trespassers — are owed a duty of reasonable care. Visitor status is a factor the jury considers when evaluating reasonableness, but it does not determine whether a duty exists as a matter of law. This is the most plaintiff-favorable premises standard in the country.
Potentially yes. Under Wyoming's Clarke v. Beckwith reasonable care standard, a property owner's duty includes taking reasonable steps to address known or foreseeable icy conditions in areas where entrants are expected to walk. Wyoming does not have a specific natural accumulation immunity rule equivalent to some other states. The specific facts — how long the ice was present, whether the owner knew or should have known, and what remediation was reasonably available — drive the analysis. Business owners serving the public in Wyoming's harsh winter climate face recurring foreseeability of slip hazards.
The open-and-obvious doctrine is not an automatic bar in Wyoming. Under the Clarke framework, an open-and-obvious condition is a factor in the reasonableness analysis and goes to comparative fault allocation under § 1-1-109, not to duty elimination. The owner can argue that the obviousness of the hazard reduces their liability; the victim can argue that the hazard was foreseeable to encounter despite its visibility, and that the owner should have remediated it. The jury weighs all circumstances — not just whether the hazard was visible.
The Wyoming Governmental Claims Act under § 1-39-113 requires written claim presentation within two years of the act, error, or omission that caused the injury. After disposition, at least one additional year exists to file suit. Missing the two-year written claim deadline permanently bars the government-entity claim. State and county government ownership of walkways, roads, parks, and public facilities in Wyoming creates a recurring category of premises injury where this deadline is the decisive threshold.
All legal information on this page is sourced from primary government statutes. Last verified 2026-04-07.
In-depth articles relevant to your slip & fall lawyer case.
Slip and Fall Settlement Amounts: What Is Your Case Worth?
See average slip and fall settlement amounts by injury type. Learn what property owners owe you and how to maximize your premises liability claim.
How Long Does a Personal Injury Case Take? (2026 Timeline)
Understand the typical timeline of a personal injury case from filing to settlement. Learn what factors speed up or delay your claim.
Pain and Suffering Calculator: How Much Is Your Claim Worth?
Learn how pain and suffering is calculated in personal injury cases. Understand the multiplier and per diem methods with real examples.
Different type of accident? We connect victims with attorneys across all six practice areas.
Collected by partner attorneys for injured clients. California and Pennsylvania reviews prioritized.
“After my crash, I did not know whether to talk to the insurance company first or get treatment documented. The attorney explained the timeline and what evidence mattered.”
— California accident review, Los Angeles, CA
“I did not understand Pennsylvania limited tort or why the adjuster kept asking about my policy. Getting matched with someone local helped me know what questions to ask.”
— Pennsylvania accident review, Philadelphia, PA
Informational only. GetAccidentLawyerNow is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Every case is unique.
Don't wait. The 4 years statute of limitations is ticking.
Call (267) 212-1034 Now*Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is unique.