Thompson v. Cooper
2012 Alas. LEXIS 179
| Alaska | 2012Background
- In December 2008 Cooper caused a car crash injuring Thompson; Thompson sued Cooper and Central Plumbing & Heating for compensatory and punitive damages.
- The jury awarded Thompson compensatory damages but not punitive damages; appeal challenged evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and post-trial motions.
- The trial court excluded Thompson’s treating physicians’ causation testimony, citing Daubert/Marron distinctions, and did not give an additional-harm instruction.
- Central’s liability for compensatory damages was admitted; punitive-damages claims were contested on multiple grounds.
- On remand, the court remands for a new trial on compensatory damages; punitive damages issues remain, with prior rulings affirmed where not reversed on remand.
- Cooper’s Parkinson’s disease and Provigil use were central to credibility and causation arguments, with medical testimony influencing causation analyses in dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treating physicians’ causation testimony admissibility | Treating physicians’ causation opinions should be admissible as experience-based | Exclude under Daubert/Marron as improper causation or due to Rule 26(a)(2) and Rule 403 | Daubert not required for experience-based causation; exclusion reversed; remand for new trial on compensatory damages |
| Additional harm instructions | Pattern or modified additional-harm instruction should be given | Instruction would confuse and was not supported by evidence | Instruction error; remand for new trial on compensatory damages with appropriate additional-harm instruction |
| Superseding-cause instruction | Juror tools needed to assess phantom post-accident events | No evidence supporting superseding defense; instruction unnecessary | Court acted within discretion in not giving superseding-cause instruction |
| Punitive damages related to Provigil and other factors | Various non-provigil factors could support punitive damages | Hayes factors limit punitive claims; other factors insufficient to create issue | Summary judgment upheld on non-provigil factors; remand limited to compensatory damages; punitive damages resolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Marron v. Stromstad, 123 P.3d 992 (Alaska 2005) (Daubert applies to scientific theory, not experience-based causation by treating physicians)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (Establishes test for admissibility of scientific expert testimony)
- Marsingill v. O'Malley, 128 P.3d 151 (Alaska 2006) (Confirms experience-based testimony not subject to Daubert)
- Fletcher v. S. Peninsula Hosp., 71 P.3d 833 (Alaska 2003) (Physician-testimony distinctions; expert vs fact witness)
- Hayes v. Xerox Corp., 718 P.2d 929 (Alaska 1986) (Restatement-based punitive-damages considerations as a guide, not universal rule)
- Laidlaw Transit, Inc. v. Crouse ex rel. Crouse, 53 P.3d 1093 (Alaska 2002) (Context for exposure of expert testimony standards)