Steward v. State
322 P.3d 860
Alaska2014Background
- Leah Davis died in a northern Richardson Highway crash after a USPS vehicle crossed the centerline and Davis’s car entered the Tanana River.
- There was no guardrail at milepost 330 when the crash occurred.
- In 1994 a DOTPF erosion-control project removed the existing guardrail and planned to rely on an adequate clear zone instead.
- Study documents stated the erosion design would provide a sufficient clear zone to eliminate the guardrail and that the existing guardrail would be removed.
- Steward (personal representative) and Warren Davis sued the State, alleging failure to reinstall a guardrail and failure to maintain an adequate clear zone.
- The superior court granted summary judgment to the State on the guardrail claim (discretionary function immunity) but allowed a trial on the clear zone claim, resulting in a jury verdict for the State on negligence-related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does discretionary function immunity bar the guardrail claim? | Steward argues the guardrail decision was not planning-stage, so immunity may not apply. | State contends the guardrail decision was a planning-level policy decision entitled to immunity. | Yes; discretionary function immunity applies, affirming summary judgment for guardrail claim. |
| Was Trooper Harris’s testimony about the crash properly admitted as testimony of an expert? | Steward contends Harris’s airborne conclusion requires expert qualification and supports her case. | State contends Harris’s testimony constitutes lay testimony describing observed facts. | Harris’s testimony was properly treated as lay testimony; admissibility not reversible error. |
| Did the trial court err by excluding Steward’s expert during Harris’s testimony? | Shover should have heard Harris’s testimony to prepare rebuttal and verify conclusions. | Harris’s testimony does not require Shover’s presence; exclusion was permissible as a non-expert. | Exclusion was harmless error; no reversal needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiokun v. State, Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 74 P.3d 209 (Alaska 2003) (discretionary function immunity framework)
- Industrial Indemnity Co. v. State, 669 P.2d 561 (Alaska 1983) (guardrail decision as policy-level, immune)
- Wells v. State, 46 P.3d 967 (Alaska 2002) (guardrail decisions—planning vs. operational)
- Estate of Arrowwood ex rel. Loeb v. State, 894 P.2d 642 (Alaska 1995) (discretionary function analysis and immunity)
- Abbott v. State, 498 P.2d 712 (Alaska 1972) (planning vs. operational tests for immunity)