State, Department of Health & Social Services v. Mullins
328 P.3d 1038
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Alecia Mullins (1990) and Shayna Mullins (1992) were placed with their grandparents Jack and Barbara Dominick under OCS custody after safety concerns about their mother Angela McCoy's substance abuse.
- The sisters disclosed years of sexual abuse by Jack; Jack pleaded no contest to three counts of sexual abuse of a minor; Barbara's abusive conduct followed.
- Trial evidence supported claims that OCS failed to properly monitor, investigate, and provide services to protect the Mullins sisters from abuse.
- Jury allocated 95% fault to OCS and 0% to Jack and Barbara; damages were awarded for future and past economic and non-economic harms.
- Superior Court denied OCS’s motions for remittitur and for a new trial; OCS appealed arguing the fault allocation was plainly unreasonable.
- Supreme Court reversed, remanding for a new trial, and remanded to address discretionary function immunity and proper manual guidance in light of immunity and policies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the fault allocation plainly unreasonable? | Mullinses argued OCS's negligence allowed abuse and that fault could be allocated to others. | OCS contends the allocation was proper given evidence and policy considerations. | Yes; allocation was plainly unreasonable. |
| Should a new trial be ordered based on the allocation finding? | Evidence supported OCS’s liability and the distribution was inconsistent with the evidence. | The jury’s findings should stand unless clearly erroneous. | A new trial is required. |
| Whether discretionary-function immunity was applied correctly and how to handle jury instructions? | Immunity should not immunize discretionary actions that caused harm if not properly instructed. | Immunity should shield discretionary planning and policy decisions. | The court remands to ensure proper immunity analysis; instructions should be aligned with immunity doctrine. |
| What is the proper standard and process for applying discretionary-function immunity in this context? | OCS duties and determinations should be reviewed for policy-driven immunity. | Agency decisions involving policy factors may be immune. | Trial court must apply correct immunity framework and use specific interrogatories. |
Key Cases Cited
- Babinec v. Yabuki, 799 P.2d 1325 (Alaska 1990) (allocation of fault and notice issues in negligence claims)
- Kingery v. Barrett, 249 P.3d 275 (Alaska 2011) (AS 09.17.080 guidance and fault apportionment considerations)
- State v. Cowles, 151 P.3d 353 (Alaska 2006) (discretionary-function immunity framework for state actions)
- R.E. v. State, 878 P.2d 1341 (Alaska 1994) (discretionary decisions and policy-factor balancing)
- State v. Abbott, 498 P.2d 712 (Alaska 1972) (policy considerations in government action)
- Scott v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 643 (App. 1994) (fault allocation irrationality when tortfeasors include intentional acts)