Marshall v. Peter
2016 Alas. LEXIS 103
| Alaska | 2016Background
- On an icy March day, Marshall stopped at a traffic light preparing to turn; Peter stopped about one-half car length behind her. After the light turned green Marshall moved then stopped sooner than Peter expected; Peter released his brake, then reapplied it and slid into the rear of Marshall’s car at an estimated ~3 mph.
- Both drivers testified; Peter said he was watching the gap, wasn’t distracted, and had not yet accelerated. Marshall described a forceful rear-end that slid her car forward and caused injury.
- Police observed no apparent vehicle damage; the officer concluded Marshall had not driven improperly and characterized Peter as having made an improper start.
- Marshall sued for negligence and sought summary judgment/then a directed verdict on liability; the jury found Peter not negligent.
- Peter made two early Rule 68 offers after suit was filed; Marshall did not accept. After trial the superior court awarded Peter 75% of reasonable actual attorney’s fees under Rule 68; Marshall appeals denial of directed verdict and the fee award.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirms: it holds reasonable jurors could disagree about negligence and that Peter’s Rule 68 offers complied with the rule, so the fee award stands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying Marshall’s motion for directed verdict on negligence | Marshall: No reasonable juror could find Peter not negligent given he rear-ended her | Peter: Evidence (low speed, short gap, icy conditions, monitoring gap, had only released brake) permits reasonable disagreement | Court: Affirmed — viewing evidence for nonmovant, reasonable jurors could differ; denial proper |
| Whether Peter’s Rule 68 offers triggered fee-shifting | Marshall: Offers were unreasonably low and not intended to encourage settlement, thus invalid | Peter: Although low, offers were a reasonable negotiation starting point given facts and weaknesses in Marshall’s claim | Court: Affirmed — offers had an objectively reasonable prospect to start settlement dialogue and complied with Rule 68 |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Plutt, 790 P.2d 1347 (Alaska 1990) (precedent finding following-driver negligence where evidence compelled that result)
- Grimes v. Haslett, 641 P.2d 813 (Alaska 1982) (similar precedent on following-driver liability)
- Anderson v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 234 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2010) (Rule 68 offers must have an objective prospect of encouraging settlement; not a "good faith" test)
- Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1154 (Alaska 2009) (low offers that cannot plausibly elicit negotiation are invalid under Rule 68)
- Rude v. Cook Inlet Region, Inc., 322 P.3d 853 (Alaska 2014) (example of a low but valid offer where underlying claim was weak)
- Alaska Fur Gallery, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank Alaska, 345 P.3d 76 (Alaska 2015) (standard of review for fee awards and appellate review of fee determinations)