Kingery v. Barrett
2011 Alas. LEXIS 12
Alaska2011Background
- Kingery was involved in two collisions with Barrett and Miller in 2001; Barrett admitted negligence but denied being the legal cause; Kingery sued Barrett and settled with Miller before trial; the trial court instructed the jury with an erroneous negligence definition but corrected before deliberations; the jury returned a defense verdict finding Barrett’s negligence not a legal cause of injuries; Kingery sought a new trial which the superior court denied; Kingery appeals the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defense verdict was legally permissible as to causation | Kingery argues Barrett’s negligence caused injuries. | Barrett contends he was negligent but not the legal cause. | Defense verdict permissible; evidence supports non-causation finding. |
| Whether Barrett’s non-binding admissions produced an inconsistent verdict | Kingery says admissions conflicted with verdict. | Barrett’s statements were not binding admissions. | No binding judicial admissions; no new trial required. |
| Whether the erroneous jury instruction was harmless error | Instruction 8 misstated negligence. | Error was harmless since law stated Barrett negligent and verdict focused on causation. | Harmless error; no new trial needed. |
| Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Kingery asserts overwhelming medical proof of injuries. | Evidence supported that Barrett’s negligence was not the cause. | Verdict not against the weight of the evidence. |
| Whether exclusion of insurance-file evidence was reversible error | Claim file details should be admitted for relevance. | Evidence excluded as prejudicial; probative value was limited. | Exclusion within trial court’s discretion; no new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winschel v. Brown, 171 P.3d 142 (Alaska 2007) (substantial factor causation framework discussed)
- Pugliese v. Perdue, 988 P.2d 577 (Alaska 1999) (when liability and causation are proved, some damages typically awardable)
- Grant v. Stoyer, 10 P.3d 594 (Alaska 2000) (reversing where damages are not awarded despite fault and injury)
- Hogg v. Raven Contractors, Inc., 134 P.3d 349 (Alaska 2006) (jury can find negligence but not causation; supports denial of new trial)
- Kava v. American Honda Motor Co., 48 P.3d 1170 (Alaska 2002) (standard for reviewing trial court’s denial of a new trial)
- Cummins, Inc. v. Nelson, 115 P.3d 536 (Alaska 2005) (plain error review of instructions concise)