Sowinski v. Walker, S-12114.
| Court | Supreme Court of Alaska (US) |
| Citation | 198 P.3d 1134 |
| Docket Number | No. S-12734.,No. S-12114.,No. S-12203.,S-12114.,S-12203.,S-12734. |
| Parties | Rose SOWINSKI and James McGill, d/b/a Delrois Bar and Liquor Store, Appellants, v. William Patrick WALKER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Jason Walker, William Patrick Walker, Donna Irene Walker, and Rhonda Walker; Donald Lawrence Vaughn, Personal Representative of the Estate of Justin Daniel Vaughn, Donald Lawrence Vaughn, and Donna Vaughn, Appellees. William Patrick Walker, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Jason Walker, William Patrick Walker, Donna Irene Walker, and Rhonda Walker; Donald Lawrence Vaughn, Personal Representative of The Estate of Justin Daniel Vaughn, Donald Lawrence Vaughn, and Donna Vaughn, Appellants, v. State of Alaska, Appellee. Rose Sowinski and James McGill d/b/a Delrois Bar and Liquor, Appellants, v. William Patrick Walker, Personal Representative of The Estate of Robert Jason Walker, William Patrick Walker, Donna Irene Walker, and Rhonda Walker; Donald Lawrence Vaughn, Personal Representative of The Estate of Justin Daniel Vaughn, Donald Lawrence Vaughn, and Donna Vaughn, Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 31 December 2008 |
Sarah J. Tugman, Anchorage, for Appellants Rose Sowinski and James McGill.
Phillip Paul Weidner, Michael Cohn, Weidner & Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Walker Appellants/Appellees.
Charles W. Coe, Law Office of Charles W. Coe, Anchorage, for Vaughn Appellants/Appellees.
Joanne M. Grace, Assistant Attorney General, Talis J. Colberg, Attorney General, Anchorage, for Appellee State of Alaska.
Before: FABE, Chief Justice, MATTHEWS, EASTAUGH, CARPENETI, and WINFREE, Justices.
After consuming alcohol purchased at DelRois Liquor Store, minors Robert Walker and Justin Vaughn rode together on an ATV and were killed when they struck a cable stretched across an access road. The personal representatives of their estates and the decedents' families sued DelRois for providing alcohol to the boys and the State of Alaska for failing to maintain the access road free of hazards. The superior court granted the State summary judgment. The personal representatives of the decedents' estates and the decedents' families appeal. The claims against DelRois proceeded to final judgment after a jury trial. The jury found DelRois partly responsible and apportioned to it a share of the plaintiffs' damages. DelRois appeals. We hold the State did not have a duty either to maintain the access road or to remove the cable running across it. With respect to DelRois's appeal, because we conclude that the legislature's adoption of pure several liability in AS 09.17.080 supersedes our holding in Loeb v. Rasmussen,1 we hold the superior court erred in requiring DelRois to bear the decedents' share of responsibility for the accident. We conclude that under Alaska's system of comparative negligence with pure several liability, a dram shop is liable only for its percentage of fault in actions between the shop and a minor that involve the shop's provision of and the minor's use of alcohol. While we reject DelRois's arguments regarding the superior court's failure to reduce the Walker and Vaughn plaintiffs' recovery by their settlement amount and to exclude various testimony, we hold that the superior court erred by allowing the jury to award loss of enjoyment of life damages and by instructing the jury that it could award nonpecuniary damages to Walker's sister. Likewise, we hold the superior court erred in instructing the jury that it could award damages to the decedents' parents for loss of consortium for the decedents' post-majority period. We therefore vacate the judgment against DelRois and the various awards to the Walker and Vaughn plaintiffs and remand for modification.
This case arises from an ATV accident in which two boys died. While the parties dispute the facts, it appears that sometime in the late evening of June 24, 1996, or the early morning of June 25, 1996, minors Justin Vaughn and Robert Walker (collectively "the decedents") both consumed alcohol they had purchased at DelRois Liquor Store.2 After drinking, the decedents and Crystal Brueggeman rode an ATV northeast along a beach adjacent to the Knik River, with Vaughn driving.3 At about four o'clock in the morning, Vaughn turned the ATV off of the beach and drove southwest down an access road4 that connected the beach to Knik River Road. Vaughn drove along the access road, through property owned by Raone Bingham,5 and crossed onto property owned by the federal government. Raone's son, Carl Bingham, had strung a cable across the access road on the federal land to prevent trespassers from entering the Bingham property. The ATV struck the cable, killing Vaughn and Walker within seconds or minutes.6 It is unknown whether they suffered. Robert Walker's parents, Donna and William Walker, and sister, Rhonda Walker, were notified of the accident at approximately seven o'clock that same morning and arrived on the scene in time to view the decedents' bodies.
The personal representatives of the decedents' estates and the decedents' families7 (collectively "the Walker and Vaughn plaintiffs") sued several parties in superior court to recover damages resulting from the accident. They sued DelRois for providing alcohol to the underage decedents and the State for failing to maintain the access road free of hazards. The Walker and Vaughn plaintiffs also sued Raone and Carl Bingham for erecting the cable that killed their sons, but the plaintiffs and Binghams eventually settled these claims.8 The personal representatives of the decedents' estates sued to recover for the decedents' pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of future earnings. The decedents' families — including Justin Vaughn's parents (Donald and Donna Vaughn) and Robert Walker's parents (William and Donna Walker) and sister (Rhonda Walker) — sought to recover damages for emotional distress and loss of consortium.9
The State moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not own the land on which the access road was located and that there was no other basis for holding the State liable for failing to maintain the access road. The superior court agreed and dismissed all claims against the State. The Walker and Vaughn plaintiffs appeal.
The Walker and Vaughn plaintiffs' claims against DelRois proceeded to a jury trial. The superior court provided a special verdict form to the jury. In answering questions on this form the jury made several factual findings, including the damages suffered by each plaintiff, and apportioned percentages of fault for the accident. The jury found that DelRois provided alcohol to the decedents and that this act was a cause of the accident. It apportioned to DelRois thirty-five percent of the fault for the accident. The jury apportioned twenty-five percent of the fault for the accident to Justin Vaughn and two percent to Robert Walker.10 The jury also valued the loss of the decedents' estates — the decedents' pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of future earnings — and the loss of the decedents' families — emotional damages and loss of consortium.11
The superior court entered judgment in favor of the Walker and Vaughn plaintiffs. The court further ordered DelRois to pay damages not only for its share of responsibility for the accident, thirty-five percent, but also the decedents' share of responsibility, twenty-seven percent total.12 The court reasoned that DelRois could not reduce its share of responsibility by that of the decedents' because the court found that Alaska statutes and case law did not permit a comparative negligence defense. DelRois appeals.
The certificate for distribution of the final judgment was mailed by the clerk of court on November 11, 2005. The Walker and Vaughn plaintiffs moved for attorney's fees on May 12, 2006. DelRois opposed the motion on untimeliness grounds. After considering supplemental memoranda, the court decided to award fees despite the lateness of the motion. The court awarded partial attorney's fees of more than $160,000 under the "contested with trial" schedule of Civil Rule 82(b)(1). DelRois has filed a separate appeal from this award which we consider with its appeal on the merits.
The Walker and Vaughn plaintiffs appeal the superior court's determination that the State did not have a duty to maintain the access road and keep it free from hazards. To understand their claims, it is helpful to understand the access road's history.
The access road runs northeast through two pieces of land. These pieces of land share a common border running north and south. Both pieces of land are bordered on the north by the Knik River. The Bingham family has owned the eastern piece of land for all time periods relevant to this case. As we explain below, the federal government has owned the western piece of land for all time periods relevant to this case.
In the early 1970s the State began planning to construct Knik River Road. The road was to run east to west along the southern portions of both pieces of property. The problem for the State was that it did not own either piece of land.
With respect to the Binghams' land, the State merely condemned the land it needed for its right-of-way. The Binghams objected and claimed that construction of Knik River Road would sever the southwest corner of their land. The State and the Binghams settled this dispute by agreeing that the State would take title to the severed portion of land and compensate the Binghams accordingly. Of particular relevance to this appeal, the State in the settlement agreement promised that the access road would remain a "public road" where it crossed federal land.
The State had greater difficulties, however, obtaining a right-of-way across the western property. Before 1971 the western piece of property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DIAZ v. State of Alaska, S-13151.
...judgment did not address Diaz's claims against Christensen and Bowers except to note that defamation claims were dismissed by stipulation. 8Sowinski v. Walker, 198 P.3d 1134, 1143 (Alaska 2008). 9Nichols v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 6 P.3d 300, 303 (Alaska 2000) (citing Shade v. CO & Angl......
-
Ennen v. Integon Indem. Corp., S–13832.
...requirements of causal relation apply both to fault as the basis for liability and to contributory fault”). 2. See Sowinski v. Walker, 198 P.3d 1134, 1149–56 (Alaska 2008) (discussing transition to pure comparative negligence with pure several liability and overruling prior dram shop cases ......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dooley, S-13331.
...compensatory damages, because the absence of evidence can make it impossible to prove compensatory damages. Id. 37 Sowinski v. Walker, 198 P.3d 1134, 1158 (Alaska 2008). 38 Id.; Alaska R. Civ. P. 37(b). 39 Alaska R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). 40 "The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, an......
-
Stafford v. Roadway
...to claims of negligence where a minor plaintiff's injuries were caused by his or her consumption of alcohol. See Sowinski v. Walker, 198 P.3d 1134, 1155 n. 103 (Alaska 2008) (compiling list of states that allow defense of contributory negligence in claims involving negligent service of alco......