dissenting, with whom GOLDEN, Justice, joins.
I dissent. In doing so, I am compelled to offer some jurisprudential criticism. In an instance such as this, if the result of the court’s initial decision is to be changed, it ought to be because of some compelling rule that is clearly identifiable by precedents or other mandatory authorities. Constitutional issues are of such significant import that they should not be resolved by a plurality decision without a majority opinion. The court owes a duty to the bench, the bar, and the citizens of Wyoming to agree on a basis for decision and to justify that basis. In this instance, there is no opinion of the court. I am concerned that the requirements of our statute have not been satisfied.
The opinion of the justices of the supreme court on any matter pending before it, shall be given in writing and filed with the papers in the case, and when the justices thereof are divided in opinion in any case, the fact of such division shall be stated in the opinion and the dissenting justice may file his opinion.
Wyo.Stat. § 5-2-110 (1977).
The statute seems to clearly contemplate that the court will arrive at a majority position, and that has not happened in this instance. In fact, there is yet a third opinion invoking provisions of the constitution that neither the opinion of the court nor Justice Cardine’s concurring opinion will support.
This case stands as a classic object lesson demonstrating the awkwardness and futility of reasoning from a decision. My point is illustrated by the fact that now the members of the court who appeared to agree on a result cannot agree with respect to why they arrived at that result. In an instance *65such as this, in which the case has been decided once; three members of the court have agreed upon not only the result but the rationale for that result; and the bench, bar, and the citizens of the state have been apprised of that result, it is incumbent upon the court to justify a switch in position by clear, cogent, and unequivocal reasons. Since all of these hallmarks are absent from the majority and concurring positions, I am compelled to adhere to the views articulated in the original opinion of the court. Mills v. Reynolds, 807 P.2d 383 (Wyo.1991). In addition, I join in the cogent and scholarly views articulated in the separate dissenting opinion of Justice Golden. I am satisfied that the authority upon which Justice Golden relies is equally effective to refute the positions of the concurring justices, which, in effect, take from the legislature its appropriate role in establishing substantive law.
It would be an imposition to reiterate the position of the court when this case was first decided. Instead, I commence my critique of the majority decisions by quoting some very perceptive language:
Perhaps only a Cassandra will be heard to mourn the neglected rule of stare decisis, but it is a sad day indeed when our declarations within the same case are subject to judicial revision. If we are unwilling to take seriously what we write, how can we expect others to take us seriously?
Jones v. State, 798 P.2d 1206,1208 (Wyo.1990) (Cardine, J., dissenting).
The pitfalls that must be associated with the new decisions can only be captured by emphasizing the confusion they will leave with the bench, the bar, and the citizens in general. The absence of a clear rationale for the decisions must be deplored. A constitutional decision in which, at the most, only two justices can agree on any basis for the decision must be regarded as an institutional failure.
It is appropriate to consider first the conclusion in Justice Cardine’s concurring opinion that the statute contravenes Article 10, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Wyoming. I begin by noting that, in his opinion, Justice Cardine initially is faithful to his perceptive view in Jones, quoted above. He does not join in the rationale suggested by the opinion of the court and criticizes that rationale because it departs from Meyer v. Kendig, 641 P.2d 1235 (Wyo.1982), with respect to the shift from “an ordinary interest” to “a fundamental right.” Yet, when the holding of the court in Meyer with respect to Article 10, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Wyoming is addressed, Meyer is given no precedential effect in the concurring opinion. Surely this is a selective use of the doctrine of stare decisis.
It is simply cavalier to ignore this holding in Meyer:
Appellee argues that the first sentence of Art. 10, § 4, Wyoming Constitution, prohibits the legislature from granting immunity to co-employees for negligence, regardless of degree. She acknowledges the propriety of immunity granted to employers because of the subsequent language in Art. 10, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. Such first sentence states that “no law shall be enacted limiting the amount of damages to be recovered * * * ” (emphasis added). Section 27-12-103(a) [the predecessor of Wyo.Stat. § 27-14-104(a) ] does not limit the amount of damages to be recovered. It limits the cause of action available for a recovery. The fact that the first sentence of Art. 10, § 4 relates only to the amount of damages is exemplified by the second sentence which pertains to the “right to recover.” A “limitation in amount” and a “right to recover” were regarded as separate issues and treated separately by the framers of the Wyoming Constitution. See Journal and Debate of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Wyoming, pp. 443-454 and 614-616 (1889). The plain language of such first sentence and its ordinary meaning reflects its prohibition to be against laws limiting the “amount of damages.” Section 27-12-103(a) does not do that. This fact is determinative of the constitutionality of such section insofar as Art. 10, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution is concerned. Furthermore, if *66the first sentence of Art. 10, § 4, were given the broad application urged by ap-pellee, it would conflict with, and would make enactments impermissible on, such subjects as comparable negligence, statutes of limitation, contribution among joint tort-feasors, etc.
Meyer, 641 P.2d at 1239 (footnotes omitted).
Upon reflection, I am persuaded that neither in the prior opinion of the court, nor the initial dissent, nor any of the court’s opinions upon rehearing, has the true nub of this controversy been identified and described. The fact of the matter is that these claims are nothing more than an effort to impose vicarious liability upon the employer, who clearly is relieved from tort liability by the constitution and the statutes, by structuring a claim against a co-employee who must be perceived as an additional insured under the employer’s liability insurance policy. The effort, then, is to require that an employer respond to an injury at the jobsite not only by the maintenance of worker’s compensation coverage for his injured employees, but by virtue of a liability policy. The employer, in fact, does pay twice. He pays by his contribution to the worker’s compensation fund, and he pays by virtue of what will have to be additional premiums for his liability insurance. When this situation is recognized for what it is, it does seem that the product of the new decisions is antithetical to the intent of the worker’s compensation statutes. I note that, in his earlier dissent, Justice Urbigkit conceded this proposition, as Justice Cardine now does in his concurring opinion.
If this is to be the product of the new decisions, I wonder if it doesn’t signal a truly Pyrrhic victory for the injured workers. I assume that liability insurance carriers will have little difficulty in defining an additional insured under the employer’s liability insurance policy so that it does not include an employee when the claim is made by a co-employee. Consequently, the deep pocket, which these claimants obviously want to dip into, will not be available. With respect to the right to sue co-employees, the majority adopts a rule that justifies every working man in surveying the work place and saying to himself, “Now, I can sue everyone here!” Some perceptive working person may pause and say also, “Wait a minute! Now, everyone here can sue me!” It is clear that this decision by the court creates the prospect of economic disaster for every worker in the State of Wyoming. Nothing in the law is going to require an employer to maintain a liability insurance policy that in effect duplicates the worker’s compensation coverage. Nothing in the law is going to limit any recovery to the proceeds of the employer’s liability insurance policy. The homeowner’s insurance of every worker who owns a home; that worker’s personal and real property; that worker’s savings accounts and investments; and, perhaps, even that worker’s retirement fund may all become available to respond to the claim for damages.
In light of this situation, the rationale articulated in Justice Cardine’s concurring opinion with respect to the history of the Constitutional Convention is not persuasive of an intent to limit legislative authority to abolish remedies. The argument is nothing more than bootstrapping. There is nothing in the remarks of Mr. Reed reported in the Journal and Debates of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Wyoming (1889) that really suggests he was concerned at all with the proposition that the legislature could take away a remedy. Language that addresses matters of contract between an employer and an employee cannot be stretched to relate to limiting the authority of the legislature. The conclusion that Article 10, Section 4 forecloses that result by articulating a prohibition upon limiting damages is a classic non sequitur. The better wisdom is found in the language of Justice Potter in Rasmussen v. Baker, 7 Wyo. 117, 138, 50 P. 819, 824 (1897). Justice Potter, who had been a leading member of the same Constitutional Convention, wrote in that case:
The debates of the convention are not a very reliable source of information upon the subject of the construction of any particular word or provision of the *67constitution. As we understand the current of authority and the tendency of the courts, they may for some purpose, but in a limited degree, be consulted in determining the interpretation to be given some doubtful phrase or provision; but, as a rule, they are deemed an unsafe guide.
I am satisfied that the authority that Justice Golden recites for the proposition that the elimination of a remedy does not contravene Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the State of Wyoming has substantially the same impact with respect to a claim that the abolition of a remedy is foreclosed by Article 10, Section 4. Invoking a current analogy, I fear that, if the thread of reasoning in the concurring opinion were a bungee jumping cord, the jumper surely would die because the cord is too frail and would be stretched too far.
In fact, it seems to me this is exactly what has occurred in connection with the opinion of the court as it now stands. Justice Golden very deftly has eviscerated the contention that Article 1, Section 8 has been contravened by this legislative scheme. There is no fundamental right to the maintenance of a particular remedy. The further concern that I have with the opinion of the court is that, to the extent that it depends upon a classification that distinguishes between employment and ultra-hazardous employment, a logical extension of that rationale is that the entire worker’s compensation statutory scheme is unconstitutional. Justice Cardine is correct in his criticism that the classification of ultra-hazardous employment has continually been maintained as constitutional in Wyoming.
It is to be noted that the court’s opinion is structured on an extremely narrow ground. The rationale is that the statute is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection guarantees embraced in our state constitution. That contention is premised upon the classification scheme in the statute that extends immunity to covered employees and also those who may be covered at the discretion of the employer. The strict scrutiny standard for evaluating classifications then is invoked because of the claimed fundamental right of an injured employee to access to the courts. Justice Golden has demonstrated the fallacy of this latter precept, and I note that the opinion of the court has taken language from the court’s first opinion out of context to help explain this rationale. In the first opinion, that language was addressed to a contention that an unconstitutional classification existed because only those employees engaged in ultra-hazardous employments were granted immunity. That contention is maintained by the claimants in this rehearing, and it seems that the position of the court now is that the classification of those employees engaged in ultra-hazardous employment is constitutionally suspect and must be tested by the standard of strict scrutiny. If that is true, can anything remain of the worker’s compensation statute? The truth of the matter is that the worker’s compensation act does not create classifications that treat similarly situated people differently. All similarly situated people are treated alike, and the fact that different situations fall into different classifications, historically and analytically, does not demonstrate an unlawful classification. Neither does it support a conclusion that the rational basis test, the proper test to invoke, does not justify the statutory inhibitions.
It may be that the proposition will be reasserted that the statute justifies intentional harm, even homicide and, for that reason, cannot be supported. It is very difficult to visualize a situation in which an intentional tort, or a homicide, could be perceived as having occurred within the scope of employment. Of course, upon reflection, it is clear that these claimants do not want to maintain access to the courts by an allegation that the co-employees were not acting within the scope of their employment. The likelihood that such an allegation would remove the co-employees from the definition of an additional insured under the employer’s liability insurance policy is so compelling that the claimants do not want to make that allegation. The product of that dynamic, however, is that the scope of employment matter really be*68comes moot so far as these claimants are concerned. They simply don’t want to talk about it because it could inhibit the attempt to mulct the employer twice, once through the worker’s compensation fund, and once through the liability insurance policy.