Kingery v. Barrett, 249 P.3d 275

Two vehicle collisions occurred in 2001 when Barrett’s icy driving collided with Kingery on the Old Glenn Highway near Palmer; a second vehicle (Miller) then struck Kingery after Barrett warned him of an approaching car.
Barrett admitted negligence but contested that his negligence was the legal cause of Kingery’s injuries; Kingery settled with Miller before trial.
A jury returned a defense verdict finding Barrett’s negligence was not a legal cause of Kingery’s injuries; the superior court denied Kingery’s motion for a new trial.
Kingery’s 2003 complaint against Barrett proceeded to trial; Kingery sought to introduce insurance claim file materials from Barrett’s insurer, which the court excluded as prejudicial.
On appeal, Kingery challenged the denial of his motion for a new trial on multiple grounds, including jury instruction error, evidentiary rulings, alleged bias, and weight of the evidence; the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the new trial motion.
The court held that the trial court acted within its broad discretion, and the defense verdict was supported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alaska law precludes a defense verdict as to causation	Winschel governs; Barrett’s negligence caused all harm	No binding legal admission; evidence supports jury finding	Not entitling Kingery to a new trial; defense verdict permissible
Whether there were binding admissions by Barrett that conflicted with the verdict	Barrett admitted negligence and that he was not sole cause	Statements were not clear, unequivocal admissions	No binding judicial admissions; no new trial required
Whether the erroneous jury instruction was harmless error	Instruction 8 misstated negligence issue and tainted verdict	Error was harmless; instruction corrected before deliberations	Harmless error; no new trial warranted
Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence	Medical testimony showed substantial injuries connected to collisions	Conflicting evidence supports the jury’s causation finding	Not plainly unreasonable or unjust; denial of new trial affirmed
Whether exclusion of the Allstate file was error requiring new trial	Evidence of insurance file relevant to bias/causation	Excludable for prejudicial effect under Rule 403	Within discretion to exclude; no new trial necessary

Winschel v. Brown, 171 P.3d 142 (Alaska 2007) (causation under substantial factor test; issues of legal causation discussed)
Hogg v. Raven Contractors, Inc., 134 P.3d 349 (Alaska 2006) (defendant negligent but not proven as cause; weight of evidence review)
Grant v. Stoyer, 10 P.3d 594 (Alaska 2000) (damages when negligence and causation are shown; grant new trial for weight of evidence concerns)
Pugliese v. Perdue, 988 P.2d 577 (Alaska 1999) (standard for new trial where negligence and causation are conceded or proven; damages required)
Kava v. American Honda Motor Co., 48 P.3d 1170 (Alaska 2002) (defining standard for reviewing motions for new trial; independent judgment on law)
Ollice v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 659 P.2d 1182 (Alaska 1983) (plain error review for jury instructions)