Pouzanova v. Morton
327 P.3d 865
| Alaska | 2014Background
- In 2008 Pouzanova ran a stop sign and was T‑boned by Morton; liability for the accident was not contested, but Morton sought non‑economic and punitive damages for injuries.
- The district court granted summary judgment dismissing Morton’s punitive damages claim for lack of evidence of recklessness and allowed evidence of domestic violence (including an alleged hammer incident) relevant to loss of enjoyment of life.
- Morton rejected a Rule 68 offer; jury awarded $5,000 past non‑economic damages and $0 future damages, and attorney fees/costs offset the verdict in favor of Pouzanova.
- On appeal to the superior court (acting as intermediate appellate court), the judgment was vacated and the case remanded for a new trial on several grounds: punitive damages dismissal, juror challenges for cause, failure to join Morton’s husband for allocation of fault, and admission of the hammer incident evidence.
- The Alaska Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the district court erred on punitive damages, joinder of the husband, and admissibility of the hammer incident; it affirmed some rulings, reversed others, and remanded for a new trial limited by evidentiary ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morton) | Defendant's Argument (Pouzanova) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether punitive damages claim should survive summary judgment | Evidence (witness statements, Morton’s inconsistent recollections) raises fact question whether Pouzanova saw and intentionally ran the stop sign (recklessness) | Evidence insufficient to show reckless indifference; at most negligence as in Hayes | District court correctly dismissed punitive damages; no genuine issue of recklessness |
| Whether Morton’s husband had to be joined as third‑party defendant for fault allocation | Husband’s conduct (domestic violence) was blameworthy and should be allocable if relevant to damages | Joinder limited to persons whose fault relates to damages caused by the accident; husband’s conduct did not create fault for the accident | District court correctly declined joinder; husband need not be a third‑party defendant |
| Whether testimony about the hammer incident should have been admitted | Hammer incident showed recovery/functional ability and was relevant to loss of enjoyment of life | Evidence was minimally relevant, cumulative, and prejudicial; timing/context too vague to link to accident | Hammer incident evidence should have been excluded under Evidence Rule 403; admission was reversible error |
| Whether district court erred in refusing juror challenges for cause | Jurors expressed skepticism; plaintiff argues they should have been excused | No clear abuse on record; court did not individually rehabilitate as required (left unresolved) | Court did not decide due to reversal on evidentiary grounds; noted proper individual rehabilitation requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Xerox Corp., 718 P.2d 929 (Alaska 1986) (defines standard for punitive damages and reckless indifference in vehicular cases)
- ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc., 322 P.3d 114 (Alaska 2014) (summary judgment standard)
- Schofield v. City of St. Paul, 238 P.3d 603 (Alaska 2010) (declining to reach additional evidentiary issues when remanding for new trial)
- Liimatta v. Vest, 45 P.3d 310 (Alaska 2004) (discussing relevance of preexisting conditions to loss of enjoyment of life)