Patterson v. Cox
323 P.3d 1118
Alaska2014Background
- Patterson’s 1997 Ford Explorer rear-ended a stalled Dodge Neon on Gambell Street, leading to claims against Cox and Ford.
- Cox allegedly left her vehicle and failed to appear at trial despite subpoenas; Patterson sought a bench warrant or equivalent enforcement.
- Patterson alleged Ford liability based on Rutledge’s collision causing his seatbelt to fail, prompting products liability theory.
- Trial occurred August 2012 with Cox refusing to testify; court issued a curative instruction referencing Cox’s absence.
- Special verdict form Only asked if Cox and Ford were negligent, omitting Patterson’s strict products liability theory.
- Court concluded the verdict form’s omission of the products liability claim was plain error requiring reversal and a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict form improperly omitted products liability. | Patterson argues the form failed to address strict products liability. | Ford contends the form was adequate to resolve negligence. | Plain error; form was erroneous and prejudicial. |
| Whether the trial court should have compelled Cox’s appearance. | Patterson sought enforcement via bench warrant or show-cause. | Court could have pursued contempt but did not. | Court erred in not issuing a show-cause or bench warrant. |
| Whether the recusal motions required disqualification of the judge. | Alleged prior representation and bias required recusal. | No substantial bias shown; recusal not required. | Recusal not warranted; appearance of impropriety not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cummins, Inc. v. Nelson, 115 P.3d 536 (Alaska 2005) (plain error review; harmless error may be non-reversible)
- Roderer v. Dash, 233 P.3d 1101 (Alaska 2010) (plain error analysis standards)
- Khan v. State, 278 P.3d 893 (Alaska 2012) (plain error standard guidance in Alaska)
- Sowinski v. Walker, 198 P.3d 1134 (Alaska 2008) (harmless vs. prejudicial error under plain error review)
- Gilbert v. Nina Plaza Condo Ass’n, 64 P.3d 126 (Alaska 2003) (pro se litigants’ relaxed procedural requirements)
- Wilkerson v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 993 P.2d 1018 (Alaska 1999) (pro se arguments and constitutional claims jurisprudence)
- Alyssa B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 165 P.3d 605 (Alaska 2007) (appearance of impropriety standards; recusal considerations)
- Kinn v. Alaska Sales & Serv., Inc., 144 P.3d 474 (Alaska 2006) (juror bias and standards for judicial disqualification)
- Greenway v. Heathcott, 294 P.3d 1056 (Alaska 2013) (appearance of impropriety and disqualification standards)