Gates v. Richardson

ROONEY, Justice,

dissenting in the result and otherwise concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I dissent in the result, because I believe the change in law occasioned by the majori-

*202ty opinion should operate prospectively only. I concur in the change in law reflected in the majority opinion to allow recovery for negligently inflicted damages consisting only of mental injury or fright in the circumstances of this case, but I would restrict such recovery to spouses, parents, and children of the person who was seriously physically injured or killed, as held in Saffels v. Bennett, Wyo., 630 P.2d…