Sunny Haight, Personal Representative of the Estate of Savannah Cayce v. City & Borough of Juneau, 448 P.3d 254

Auke Lake (state-owned, co-managed by City & Borough of Juneau) permitted motorized watercraft; city had a 2007 ordinance limiting areas/hours/size/wake but no speed/horsepower limits or traffic patterns.
In 2011 the City built a new concrete boat launch after planning approval; planning materials noted potential increased watercraft use and said the assembly would need to enact ordinances to address safety.
In June 2012 a teenager, Savannah Cayce, died after an inflatable raft she occupied was struck while being towed by a motorized watercraft on the lake.
Cayce’s mother (Haight, as PR) sued the City and two operators for negligence, arguing the City breached a duty by not adopting speed/horsepower limits, traffic patterns, or warning signs and by failing to enforce ordinances.
The City moved for summary judgment invoking discretionary function immunity; the superior court granted judgment for the City, and Haight appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City’s decision not to regulate or mitigate lake safety (after building the launch) is immune under discretionary function doctrine	Haight: Decision whether to mitigate hazards created by the launch was implementation (operational) and thus unprotected; City should have imposed limits and posted warnings	City: Choice whether to regulate lake safety is a discretionary planning/policy decision involving resource allocation and separation-of-powers concerns	Court: Decision not to regulate was a protected planning decision; immunity applies
Whether failure to post warning signs or adopt specific safety measures is operational (and thus actionable)	Haight: Posting warnings and choosing safety measures are implementation steps (operational), analogous to required-sign rule in Guerrero	City: No statute or standard mandated signs or those measures; absent a clear mandate these are discretionary policy choices	Court: Unlike Guerrero’s mandated-sign situation, no standards here required signs; therefore no unprotected operational duty to post signs
Claim that City failed to enforce ordinances controlling watercraft use	Haight: City ineffectively enforced existing rules, contributing to hazards	City: No pleaded/presented facts showing enforcement failure or causation; issue was inadequately briefed	Court: Enforcement claim forfeited for inadequate briefing and lack of evidence; not sustained

Japan Air Lines Co. v. State, 628 P.2d 934 (Alaska 1981) (adopts planning-operational test distinguishing discretionary planning decisions from operational duties)
State, Dep’t of Transp. & Pub. Facilities v. Sanders, 944 P.2d 453 (Alaska 1997) (planning decision to allow nonconforming vehicles at airports protected, but implementation may be actionable if negligent)
Guerrero ex rel. Guerrero v. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp., 123 P.3d 966 (Alaska 2005) (post-planning implementation decisions are operational only when governed by clearly established standards mandating specific measures)
Indus. Indem. Co. v. State, 669 P.2d 561 (Alaska 1983) (decisions involving allocation of scarce resources and policy are discretionary and immune; absent an affirmative assumed duty, failure to act is protected)
Freeman v. State, 705 P.2d 918 (Alaska 1985) (policy choices balancing cost, alternatives, and environmental effects are protected planning decisions)
Wainscott v. State, 642 P.2d 1355 (Alaska 1982) (decision not to install traffic-control devices is a planning decision implicating priorities and policy)