Estate of Mickelsen Ex Rel. Mickelsen v. North-Wend Foods, Inc.
274 P.3d 1193
| Alaska | 2012Background
- Wendy's restaurant sits at a highway-adjacent site with one entry and two exits; the East Fifth Avenue exit is used as an informal entry shortcut by some drivers.
- In March 2006 a driver attempted the shortcut, crossing lanes and entering via the drive-through exit, leading to a fatal collision with another vehicle.
- Mickelsen's estate filed a wrongful-death action alleging Wendy's created a dangerous, inherently unsafe condition on its land and failed to remedy or warn about it.
- The superior court dismissed under Civil Rule 12(b)(6), ruling Wendy's owed no duty to control third-party driver behavior.
- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed, holding the complaint could state a duty-based negligence claim against the landowner and remanded for further proceedings.
- Dissent argued for affirmance, emphasizing limits on landowner liability and cautioning against expanding duties to third-party conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a negligent-duty claim against Wendy's. | Mickelsen asserts Wendy's created/maintained a dangerous condition. | Wendy's contends no duty to control third-party driving. | Yes; complaint states a viable negligence claim. |
| Whether landowners owe a duty to protect motorists from risks created by third parties on adjacent streets. | Wendy's duty arises from its control of access points affecting traffic. | No duty to third-party driving on public roads. | Duty exists under Webb and related Alaska precedent. |
| Whether Webb v. Sitka controls the duty analysis over Schumacher and R.E. lines. | Webb supports a landowner duty in this context. | Schumacher/R.E. exclude this duty when third-party conduct is involved. | Webb provides controlling precedent; not dismissed as a matter of law. |
| Whether the court should apply Restatement §364 or public policy factors. | Restatement §364 supports duty. | Not adopted here; Webb controls. | No need to adopt Restatement §364; Webb governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schumacher v. City & Borough of Yakutat, 946 P.2d 1255 (Alaska 1997) (limits on landowner liability for third-party conduct on public ways)
- R.E. v. State, 878 P.2d 1341 (Alaska 1994) (Restatement-based duty considerations in third-party conduct cases)
- Webb v. City & Borough of Sitka, 561 P.2d 731 (Alaska 1977) (landowner duty to maintain reasonably safe property based on circumstances)
- Dore v. City of Fairbanks, 31 P.3d 788 (Alaska 2001) (statutory duty and policy considerations in duty analysis)
- Burnett v. Covell, 191 P.3d 985 (Alaska 2008) (reinforces ordinary negligence principles for landowners)