Victory! Wyoming Supreme Court sides with land owner in fight against government overreach
The Wyoming Supreme Court sided with Pacific Legal Foundation client Tom Hamann on Friday, sending a clear message that government agencies can’t damage private property without consequences. The opinion also reaffirms that agencies cannot evade their constitutional obligation to compensate property owners when their officials—acting within the scope of their duties—damage private property.
The case stems from a 2018 dispute in which Heart Mountain Irrigation District (HMID) manager Randy Watts, accompanied by another HMID employee, entered Tom’s ranch. HMID had been granted limited access to move an irrigation bowl, but Watts far exceeded this scope, using an excavator to remove sections of Hamann’s fence in an attempt to construct a road that Tom had opposed. The incident culminated in Tom getting struck with the excavator bucket, leaving him with permanent brain damage.
Hamann subsequently filed a lawsuit arguing that HMID’s actions amounted to an uncompensated taking and damaging of his property. However, the district court initially ruled against him, accepting the irrigation district’s argument that it could not be held liable because its board had not “officially authorized” Watts’ destructive actions. HMID contended that any actions not approved during a public board meeting were void and, at worst, constituted a tort, thereby attempting to shield itself behind sovereign immunity.
PLF took on Hamann’s appeal, arguing that “[a] public or governmental entity cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide just compensation when its employee causes a taking or damaging of private property merely because the employee was not acting under an express instruction to do so.”
The Wyoming Supreme Court emphatically agreed. In its unanimous opinion, the court rejected HMID’s interpretation of liability, stating, “HMID’s narrow stance on liability is notably inconsistent with the very purpose of the inverse condemnation statute: to provide a means for landowners to seek compensation when the government forgoes formal action.”
The court further clarified that inverse condemnation accounts for situations where the government acts without formal deliberation, and that a governmental entity “can act only through its agents.”
The court found that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the extent of Watts’ authority and whether his conduct was an “intended or foreseeable result of authorized government action.” This means Tom Hamann will now have his day in court to demonstrate that HMID is responsible for the damage inflicted upon his property and himself.
This ruling is a significant victory not just for Tom, but for all property owners who face the potential for government overreach. It sends a clear message that government agencies cannot hide behind bureaucratic technicalities to avoid accountability when their employees, acting within the general scope of their duties, infringe upon the rights of private citizens. PLF remains committed to defending these fundamental rights and ensuring that individuals like Tom can stand up against government abuses of power.
