City of Hooper Bay v. Bunyan
359 P.3d 972
Alaska2015Background
- Louis Bunyan, a 21-year-old Hooper Bay resident, was taken into protective custody from his mother’s home while highly intoxicated and placed in a jail holding cell; he hanged himself with his sweatpants drawstring and died while detained.
- HBPD officers performed a pat-down, removed shoes, saw but did not remove a drawstring, and failed to follow a five‑minute check policy for highly intoxicated detainees; available police records showing prior suicidal ideation were not discovered or acted upon.
- Judy Bunyan (mother and personal representative) sued the City of Hooper Bay for wrongful death and estate damages, alleging negligence in failing to protect Louis from foreseeable self‑harm.
- The superior court denied the City’s summary judgment and directed‑verdict motions on immunity and foreseeability, admitted plaintiff’s economist testimony, and submitted negligence instructions; the jury found the City negligent and awarded damages totaling approximately $1,078,233 (including fees and interest).
- On appeal the City challenged duty, qualified immunity (municipal discretionary immunity and Title 47 officer immunity), admissibility of economic damages testimony, jury instructions (degree of care and foreseeability), and failure to permit allocation of fault to the decedent under comparative‑fault law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bunyan) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to detainee to prevent suicide | City owed a duty of reasonable care to protect detainees from reasonably foreseeable self‑harm, including incapacitated/intoxicated detainees | No duty to prevent suicide or duty limited by Title 47 immunity | Court: duty exists — jailer owes reasonable care, with heightened duty if detainee is incapacitated or suicidal (Joseph, Achman) |
| Qualified immunity under AS 09.65.070(d)(2) and Title 47 provisions | Plaintiff: operational failures (search, checks) are not discretionary and not immune | City: discretionary/planning acts and Title 47 conduct are immune from suit or require gross negligence standard | Court: taking into custody was discretionary and immune, but operational execution (record search, five‑minute checks) is not discretionary and not immune; Title 47 immunity applies only to decision to take into custody, not to subsequent custodial care |
| Admissibility of economic loss testimony (Daubert/Rule 702) | Gallela’s rural‑Alaska economic loss opinions were admissible and helpful despite uncertainty | City: Gallela’s report was speculative and required Daubert scrutiny; should be excluded | Court: admissible under Alaska’s liberal expert standard; Daubert not required for non‑scientific/practical‑experience economic opinions; weight for jury to assess |
| Allocation of fault (AS 09.17.080) and jury instruction on incapacity | Jury should be allowed to apportion fault between City and Louis unless decedent was legally incapacitated | Instruction 20 barred assigning any fault to Louis if jury found certain incapacity elements — City sought ability to allocate fault | Court: Instruction 20 was erroneous and overbroad because it effectively precluded comparative‑fault apportionment; remand to permit proper Wilson standard on incapacity and allocation of fault to decedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Achman v. State, 323 P.3d 1123 (Alaska 2014) (jailer’s duty includes preventing reasonably foreseeable self‑harm; heightened care for incapacitated/suicidal detainees)
- Joseph v. State, 26 P.3d 459 (Alaska 2001) (jailer owes reasonable care to protect prisoners from foreseeable suicide attempts)
- Cutler v. Kodiak Island Borough, 290 P.3d 415 (Alaska 2012) (discretionary‑vs‑operational immunity framework under AS 09.65.070(d)(2))
- State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) (adoption of Daubert factors as a useful approach for scientific evidence reliability)
- Marron v. Stromstad, 123 P.3d 992 (Alaska 2005) (expert testimony based on practical experience need not meet Daubert’s heightened requirements)
- Wilson v. City of Kotzebue, 627 P.2d 623 (Alaska 1981) (intoxication/incapacity may bar comparative negligence if one is incapable of exercising due care)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (factors for assessing admissibility of scientific expert testimony)