Hurn Ex Rel. D.H. v. Greenway, 293 P.3d 480

Greenway hosted a gathering where Carrie Randall-Evans, husband Jeffrey Evans, and others were present; Jeffrey fatally attacked Carrie, Greenway, and a guest, then killed himself.
Hurn, Carrie’s father, sued Greenway for negligent duty to control guests or refrain from provoking violence; Jeffrey’s estate settled for $800,000.
Greenway moved for summary judgment, arguing no duty to control third parties or prevent murder; superior court granted summary judgment.
Alaska law abolishes the licensee/invitee/trespasser distinction and imposes a general duty to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition; this does not include duty to control guests.
The court evaluated whether Greenway owed a duty under Restatement § 315 (special relationship) or § 302B (duty to refrain from provoking violence) and held no duty existed.
Foreseeability and public policy weighing led to concluding that third-party criminal acts are rarely foreseeable and imposing such a duty would be harsh on victims and society.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Greenway owe a duty to Carrie to prevent third-party violence?	Hurn argues Greenway had a special relation as landowner or §302B duty.	Greenway had no special relationship; §302B not controlling here.	No duty; Greenway not liable.
Does §302B apply to impose liability for a third party's crimes in this context?	§302B could apply if Greenway provoked or created risk.	§302B not controlling; no suitable examples; not applicable.	§302B does not impose liability; not controlling.
Should the court create a duty of care independently under D.S.W. factors?	Foreseeability supports duty to prevent harm.	Foreseeability insufficient; burden and community impact too harsh.	No duty created.
Was Jeffrey’s violence a foreseeable result of the taunting dance?	Foreseeability suggested by prior threats and jealousy.	Violence was highly extraordinary; not foreseeable.	Not foreseeable; no duty.
Would imposing a duty to refrain from teasing or provoking victims risk unfairly punishing victims?	Duty would reduce domestic violence.	Victims should not be blamed or liable for partners’ crimes.	Duty rejected; policy against liability on victims.

Estate of Mickelsen ex rel. Mickelsen v. North-Wend Foods, Inc., 274 P.3d 1193 (Alaska 2012) (duty to control third parties when linked to land conditions; public policy guidance)
Schumacher v. City & Borough of Yakutat, 946 P.2d 1255 (Alaska 1997) (landowners’ duty to maintain safe premises; not to control guests beyond conditions)
State v. Sandsness, 72 P.3d 299 (Alaska 2003) (foreseeability and duty factors in Alaska law)
P.G. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 4 P.3d 326 (Alaska 2000) (foreseeability framework for duty of care in Alaska)
Bryson v. Banner Health Sys., 89 P.3d 800 (Alaska 2004) (duty analysis and public policy considerations in Alaska)