Palmer v. Borg-Warner Corp.

E. Dil F. and Edward Lorraine PALMER Jr.,

lon, personal representatives of the Palmer, Appel P. of Merrett

Estate

lants, CORPORATION

BORG-WARNER Marvel-Schebler/Tillotson,

its Division Company Aerospace Products

Facet Inc.; Enterprises, and Ed

and Facet DePriest, Appellees.

ward

No. S-3318.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Nov.

Rehearings Denied Oct. Nov. Smith, Smith, Patter- D. &

Steven Coe son, appellants. Anchorage, for Hunter, Barker, David T. Lane Powell & Anchorage, appellees. MATTHEWS, C.J., Before RABINOWITZ, BURKE, COMPTON MOORE, JJ. anniversary of the before the second

OPINION against filed suit Swanson’s estate BURKE, Justice. airplane engine, Borg- manufacturer of the Warner, specifically alleging that a defec- appeal on is whether presented The issue caused the crash. The tive carburetor sum- properly granted court superior against Borg-War- filed suit estate Borg-Warner, mary judgment in favor of 20, 1988, years September ner on two component manufactur- airplane engine days learning nine of the accident. after er, the two- its conclusion that based on 09.55.580(a), limitations, year statute of AS 1988, Borg-Warner In December moved brought by wrongful death claim barred summary judgment against the Palmer for killed in an air- passenger the estate estate, arguing that the estate suit for Specifically, we must decide plane crash. two-year wrongful death was barred personal representatives whether The statute of limitations. Palmer estate claim notice of estate had and, opposed January the motion years more than two Borg-Warner partial summary filed its own motion for conclude, filing complaint. their We judgment, arguing September “[a]s court, the com- superior as did the 20, 1986, know, nor could Plaintiffs untimely. we affirm. plaint was they expected

know, aircraft that the carburetor of the The estate ... have been defective.” that its suit the manufac- claimed was, therefore, timely. superior The 8, 1986, turer Piper aircraft September On granted summary judgment for crashed, Range, roughly thir- court in the Brooks ruling pilot, Borg-Warner, time-barred ty miles south of Umiat. Both Swanson, Mer- The Palmer estate passenger, and his as a matter of Kenneth law. Palmer, undisputed appeals. killed. It is rett were her was informed of

that Palmer’s widow September 1986.1 husband’s death on II 1, 1986, engine aircraft’s On October helicopter from the scene was removed A transported to Fair- the crash and later Transportation Safe- The National banks. wrong for period The (NTSB) investiga- ty Board commenced years. suits in Alaska is two AS ful death issued tion as to the cause of crash and 09.55.580(a). literally peri such applied If n findings July of 1987. The NTSB death, in day this od would run from ultimately proba- there was concluded that September 1986.2 & ease See Gudenau crash occurred due cause to believe the ble Insurance, 736 P.2d Sweeney v.Co. pilot error. (Alaska 1987)(“Older applied cases this literally _any initiated report also indicated that The NTSB bar plaintiff ... engine only im- more than two after the teardown revealed “[t]he damaged.”); also Rus damage.” July tortiously fire see pact and On Anchorage, 743 personal representatives Municipality for Palmer’s sell v. (Alaska 1987)(statute of limi death action estate filed normally begins on the date pilot, of the aircraft’s Kenneth tations to run the estate have, September day plaintiff injury). On one suffers the Swanson. legal apparently provides time submitted an affidavit 2. AS 01.10.080 widow limitations, "comput- indicating first had such as a statute of is to be that she notice of hus- day including September party, by excluding on 10. Neither ed the first band's death however, 6(a) ("[T]he day disputes finding by superior last.” See also Alaska R.Civ.P. act, event, or from which the court that she had such notice on and, default appeal, designated period begins purposes to run is not to of this we will consid- of time included.”). controlling. The statute of limitations in this er the later date death, that, however, tolling notification of statutes in the context of has an claimant affirmative limitation, discovery rule3 adopted the duty all causes of in cases where the applies ex- action before limitations notice a claim. Under lacks immediate pires. 756 at 292 Safety, Mine P.2d trigger date is the the the limitations (the concerning the of the nature has person a reasonable “date when knowledge of the whereabouts of injury, person alert that enough information to product, the of the existence defective potential he has a cause that or she investigative report about the incident protect begin inquiry to his action or should day of to the claimant the were available Appliances v. Safety Mine rights.” accident; knowledge the the claimant had 1988); 288, Stiles, P.2d 291 756 prompt a enough facts to reasonable Sharrow, 1334). In (citing 658 P.2d at investigate shortly person after the acci- Int’l, Helicopter 694 v. Bell Hanebuth dent). 143, (Alaska 1984), we held that P.2d 146 discovery applies to Alaska’s airplane the doctrine Upon notification of an has, crash, person death statute. a matter a reasonable as law, enough to be alerted information bar, court, in In the at the trial case inquiry” concern she “should summary ruled granting judgment, ing of action the potential cause run the of limitations should pilot, the carrier or the manufacturer. See from, latest, 11th, September at the 1986. Inc., 106 Westinghouse, v. Reiterman the That the date when (1981) Mich.App. 308 N.W.2d 614 of the as plaintiffs were notified death (“as product where a matter oí law ... discovery wreckage. They as of the well instrumentality the of death the fact duty obligation from that had an been has product defective meaning- point investigate in time then been manifested. It is' incumbent any potential ful manner [defendants]. prod upon the survivors to summary reviewing grant When liability.”). gener uct determine “[T]he duty is judgment, our to determine whether safety al record of air travel and fact genuine there was a issue material technology present compel us state air moving party was entitled and whether the crashes do not normal conclude that air applicable judgment on the law ly negligence, in inclem occur absent even Safety, 756 P.2d established facts. Mine Sky Widmyer ent v. Southeast weather.” 291; Air Zeman v. German (Alaska 1978). Inc., 1, 14 If ways, 584 P.2d Lufthansa (Alaska 1985). lines, P.2d re diligently would have inquiry, pursued, summary judgment inap is an Ordinarily, fil justify vealed sufficient information to ascertaining when a propriate means period, two-year limitations within limitation commences. Mine statute of tolling the equitably we no basis for see 292; Russell, Safety, 756 P.2d at statutory time limitation. (Alaska 1987). Where, n. 11 at 375-76 & reasonably however, there exist uncontroverted facts being known from date of person when reasonable that determine potential claims of the crash that informed notice, on “we carrier, or the pilot, existed question as a can resolve the matter notified of manufacturers. The estate was P.2d at Safety, 756 law.” Mine Sep in the crash on Palmer's death 1986. The limitations court. A affirm trial care tember began on date.4 reading Safety Mine establishes ful dissent, case, therefore, Compton argues that actually Justice "[i]t In would day following reasonably September simply run on be said that Palmer cannot , day death. of Palmer's possibly car- defective have known Dissent 30th.” buretor before ... Bookman, 657 P.2d 3. Greater Area Inc. omitted). ignores focus (emphasis This the true Archer, (Alaska 1982); see also Sharrow claimant we not insist that a this case: do (Alaska 1983). Septem- filed against Borg-Warner was on court held that the date of the “[u]ntil days crash, after the limitations ber plaintiffs had no opportunity nine period expired. alleged know defective condition of landing gear.... statute of [Thus the] holding prior is consistent with our Our began limitations ... to run on the date of Gudenau, decisions. In we reasoned that collapse, plaintiffs which is when knew the insured was alerted to a cause or should alleged have known of the de- his of action insurance broker learning pay plaintiffs that the insurer refused to on fect.” Like the in Volpar, the Gudenau, a claim. 736 P.2d at 767. Be- plaintiffs in the case at bar could not know diligently pur- cause the insured failed to of a defective carburetor until the crash. alerted, sue this claim once we informed of plaintiffs Once claim, held that the filed outside the statute necessary were alerted to all the facts limitations, time-barred. Id. at 767- was investigating start cause of ac- reasoning applies 68. The same here. The upon possible tion based mechanical de- poten- estate was alerted to its Reiterman, fects. also 308 N.W.2d at upon tial causes action notification of the crash. B Russell, applicant In we held that an police academy reasonably argues The Palmer estate that it did not supporting known of the facts her sex dis- against have notice of its claim engine municipality crimination claim July argu- manufacturer until 1987. This by moment she was the de- informed (1) ment is on two theories: that the based partment minority bump.” that she was “a reports estate relied on the NTSB’s initial Russell, 743 P.2d at 375-76. The case at findings by and that the crash was caused presents bar a similar scenario. The estate and, therefore, pilot error the estate had no apprised was for a cause of suspect notice or reason to there against Borg-Warner. action The limita- failure, (2) engine the estate had tions clock started on that date. legal right no to the access decision is also consistent with Our an until after the NTSB conducted its investi- Illinois, analogous decision from another gation. jurisdiction discovery in which the rule is reject We the estate’s contention applicable death actions. report that its reliance the NTSB Aero, Inc., Sport Ill.App.3d 42 Praznik operates preclude application of the stat 330, (1976). In Chicago 355 N.E.2d 686 & ute of limitations on these facts. The Inc., Volpar, Airlines v. 54 Ill. Southern investigation was not for NTSB undertaken 609, App.3d 12 Ill.Dec. 370 N.E.2d estate, 54, purpose the benefit of the and its (1977), 55 where a crashed when landing gear collapsed landing, identify potential its was not to tortfeasors. while Cir.1976); Cos., actually precise know the cause at the time of Fiber Glass v. Moulded Szlinis 55, 282, Mich.App. injury, 80 263 N.W.2d 287 rather we conclude that a claimant Further, (1977). approach Compton’s Justice injury must as to the cause of passes covery application the dis over the intended diligently apparent promptly once it the statute "until rule. The doctrine tolls injury possible negli- has occurred due to the that he has has in fact discovered gence of another. injury, exercise of reasonable suffered diligence ton, Dobbs, simply emphasize We that failure to exercise it.” W. Kee should have discovered diligence investigating a is no cause crash Keeton, Owen, & R. Prosser & D. R. dilatory equitably toll the statute. Such conduct 30, (5th Torts at 166 ed. § Keeton on The Law of being precluded is done at the risk from 1984). Palmer estate fails on both counts: Compton’s argument bringing suit. Justice first, “discovered” on rejected Raceway v. Pocono Pro in Pocono Int'l widow was informed of her when the 468, duce, (1983) (“the 468 A.2d 471 Second, 503 Pa. the estate failed to husband’s death. begins statute to run as soon as diligence” neglect when it exercise "reasonable arises; right institute and maintain a suit possibility promptly of en ed to gine knowledge, filing lack of mistake or misunderstand pilot’s But for the estate suit failure. estate, running Borg-Warner, of the statute of do not toll the the Palmer limitations”) (citations omitted); pursued Arrowood v. never have this own admission would (4th Corp., F.2d General Motors 539 1325 claim. 636 America, investigations Corp. are 500 A.2d under- NTSB accident however, (“[t]he (Del.Super.1985) [cjourt, safety reg- determine whether air taken to recognize delay obtaining mere does complied procedures were ulations discovery ... as circumstances which possible, proba- if identify, with and limitations”). In- would toll U.S.C.App. crash. See 49 ble cause deed, length limitations 1441(a). goals do not include iden- These § legislative awareness time is reflects purposes of tort lia-

tifying negligence for investigate a course needed Moreover, reports pre- NTSB are bility. filing suit. admissibility in civil suits cluded 1441(e); however, case, U.S.C.App. it cannot be said damages. See 49 In this § have a Chevron, USA, the Palmer estate did not “rea- 779 F.2d Curry v. opportunity” to suit sonable (5th Cir.1985); Travelers Insurance Co. two from the Cir.1982). Borg-Warner within (4th Riggs, F.2d the accident.6 date Mrs. Palmer learned of Harvey, Co. v. See also Beech Aircraft investiga- assuming Even NTSB 1976). investiga- precluded tion the estate’s own efforts, had fourteen tion still reject es similarly the Palmer the months after the NTSB released wreck- argument the statute must be tate’s age investigation its own into to conduct “legal had no access” to tolled because it the cause of the crash before the limita- the was conduct the while NTSB Moreover, during period expired. tions ing and this fact nec investigation its period in which the not was accessi- requires period to essarily the limitations ble, impeded possible in- no barrier other period be The limitations runs tolled.5 vestigations such as that of relevant inquiry date Inaccessi from the of notice. literature. persuade us bility would to toll limita period the claimant does not tions where pilot’s also note that the estate filed in to a time which investi reasonable timely against Borg-Warner a However, gate file his cause action. that, passenger’s that the estate admits but every or inaccessibility obstruction will suit, not pilot’s not estaté would operate Hanebuth, to toll the statute. See pursued It is to this action. difficult (equitable tolling wrong 694 P.2d estate see how Palmer’s lacked reason- period in ful death limitations undertaken opportunity light file in able to suit litigant circumstances where has not had pilot’s timely filing. has estate’s There “any opportunity” to showing period reasonable that the limitations been no suit). Thus, Delays investigating being in causes of ma- insufficient. there no potential action and defendants are to be as to terial facts issue the timeliness claim, anticipated. Mergenthaler v. we Asbestos hold that the estate failed regulations ty present 5. The Palmer estate relies on federal record air travel state point apparent technology compel exclusion from the air us to conclude that air wreckage. normally negli aircraft The cites 49 do absent crashes gence, not occur 830.10(b), 831.9(c), Widmyer § § C.F.R. 49 C.F.R. and 49 even inclement weather.” Inc., standing proposi- (Alaska § C.F.R. 831.10-.il as for the Skyways, Southeast 584 P.2d precluded Thus, inspecting 1978). that it reasonably tion wreckage pending the estate should have investigation. the NTSB being known from the date of informed of estate, according to the Palmer statute claims crash pilot, existed during carrier, of limitations tolled be One or manufacturer. access, time the estate had no notice, and hence no “connecting pointed out commentator of their claims. injury mishap] an aviation to manufactur [in lengthy process, and flaw often is a one Borg-Warner disputes this contention liability primary dangers products the plaintiff law, claims that federal under the estate could that, general products is as a lia sought permission. have had it access if exempt bility cases are not from the statute of purposes We assume for of this review that Note, Liability, the Stat limitations." Products the estate is correct. Limitations, Discovery and the Rule ute of After Airplane are Corp., accidents not unusual in Alaska. Coast North Air v. Grumman Willam Yet, general (1989). we have concluded that "[t]he safe- ette L.Rev. against Borg-War- reasonably file its tiff discovered or timely ner. discovered the cause of the which not be until could determined after wreck grant summary judg- trial court’s found); age Area Incorporated Greater dismissing estate’s ment Bookman, AF- Borg-Warner as time-barred is 1982) (in malpractice against attorney suit FIRMED. register for failure to stock as required.by COMPTON, J., dissents, security laws, state with whom RABINOWITZ, J., joins. run until a discov reasonably ered or should have discovered COMPTON, Justice, with whom existence all elements of his cause of RABINOWITZ, Justice, joins, dissenting. action, attorney’s negligence not oc when By holding that the statute of limitations curred). Before a claimant receives notice (statute) begins to run the'mere no- prompt of facts sufficient to a reasonable death, tice of or the court person begin inquiry protect his or misapplying either a settled rule of law rights, the claimant is not to be deemed overruling long line of cases. Alaska Rather, omniscient. a claimant is deemed rule, properly I Since the settled believe only to “have of all notice correct, applied, dissent. reasonable would Rus disclose.” An accurate statement the settled sell, 743 P.2d at 376. is that “statute of limitations does In Mine Safety, it was “uncontroverted discovers, run begin to until the claimant that Stiles knew he was hit in the head discovered, the ex wearing designed safety while helmet to the istence all elements essential helmet protect such blows. The Safety Appliances cause of action.” Mine suspension clips cracked and the broke (Alaska Stiles, v. 291 Co. at upon impact.” 756 P.2d 292. The court 1988) (in brought by suit was worker who person that a focus noted reasonable would helmet, designed injured safety when immediately upon safety the after helmet one suf protect such as the blows receiving injury; a head Stiles was aware fered, splintered, gave “Stiles accident time of the helmet at the the accident that enough to give information a reason ... perform as it have. as well should safety person suspicion a able Accordingly, 4. it at 292 n. was reason- Id. failed”); may v. Mu helmet Russell inquired for Stiles into the able 743 375 nicipality Anchorage, P.2d liability products for a suit as soon as basis 1987) (Alaska (in gender dis alleging suit the date regained competency he his after crimination, statutory period began to run Here, 292. on the of the accident. Id. at a told she was when hand, subjectively not other Palmer was police academy “minority bump” prob- was the “engine aware that trouble” Co., class); Sweeney v. Gudenau & Inc. at the learned the crash— lem time she Insurance, Inc., (Alaska 736 766 P.2d question suit, (in 1987) malpractice insurance broker reason- when should have becomes inappropriate where summary judgment regarding possible a ably inquiry disagree concerning may minds reasonable “engine liability claim based products discovery of de date of reasonable latest trouble.” in procure failure to all-inclusive fendant’s linchpin court’s is prom of the conclusion defendant coverage which surance reading careful Helicopters statement that provide); Bell “[a] Hanebuth ised that, upon notifica- Safety t'l, Mine establishes P.2d 146-47 694 In death, or arising claimant tion of 1984) (in death suit for duty investi- has an affirmative area of in remote helicopter crash potential causes action before gate al all not until Alaska, found expires.” Op. at statute eight after most reading This is a careful plain- neither until begin to run not limitations did pattern surrounding nor issue the court of facts different Safety Mine by necessity vary widely. accidents will in case. It is a reformulation this reasons, question of For these wheth- and it Safety, rule in Mine articulated plaintiff applied diligence er a reasonable omniscient. require would claimants be discovering that in a death was caused reformulated in order Under this negligent generally a act must be reasonably begin an act a claimant must question deemed a of fact for determina- possible investigation of all immediate fact-finder, jury tion whether accident, no how far- of an matter causes judge. fixed Whether some moment fetched, comparatively unlikely, or well- particular plaintiff in time a they may concealed be. forming known the material facts and a knowledge of a crash Mere basis of one or more tort claims put resulting death a does reasonable might filed as the result of a death is “engine person on notice to question may not a which be considered a (or narrowly, possibly de- more trouble” question of law. carburetor) prod- for a fective as basis Interstate, 744 P.2d at 1201-02. First liability implicitly rejected ucts claim. We Russell, Safety Under a claim- Mine Hanebuth, this where as here notion is on notice ant when the deaths, plaintiffs knew of accident and (or reasonably possession claimant yet permitted to invoke nonetheless were possession) drawing be in products discovery (or draw) eight years gain- after liability action over particular prob- claimant’s attention to the Hanebuth, knowledge.1 this Safety, lem. 756 P.2d at 291-92 Mine 147-48. P.2d at helmet, (when safety designed protect Court, Supreme in First The Colorado suffered, against blows such as the one Collins, Bank Fort N.A. Interstate splintered, gave “Stiles the accident ... Piper Corp., Aircraft enough give information a reasonable (Colo.1987), rejected explicitly the notion safety person suspicion that the helmet knowledge gives con that mere of death failed”); Russell, P.2d at liability products notice ac structive (claimant undisputedly thinking along an air tion manufacturers of the lines of the eventual cause plane. The court reasoned: years). a claimant well before two While precise know does not need to technical demonstrate, facts this case As the explanation for a defect before the statute rejection logic require and common sense run, 291, 756 P.2d Safety, starts to Mine at argument.... Negligent conduct of this must notice of facts she sufficient pre- [by the cannot be manufacturer] particular focus her on a cause of attention happening of an acci- sumed from the harm. dent, by established but surrounding the acci- circumstances short, In the relevant is whether required Frequently, (or known) some time is dent. Palmer knew should (or have) suffi- persons actually for interested discover fo- facts which significant about the on cient information cused attention a defective carbure- surrounding (or broadly, “engine contribu- trou- tor even more circumstances 1986, ble”) days permit by September accu- nine ting to an or death learning of the accident and two of the actual causes after rate assessment Furthermore, complaint years was filed. injury or before the such death. by Additionally, helicopter flight claims families was October International. 1. date of The against Evergreen Helicopters, date of the and thus deduction the of the decedents Presumptive death crash was October 1974. operated helicopter, the Bell were settled were the families of certificates obtained wreckage years the crash more than five before declaring be the October decedents August 1982. Suit was filed was found on presumptive death certifi- of death. The date Helicopters International on Octo- Bell years before more than two cates were obtained Hanebuth, 147-48. ber 1982. Helicopter complaint filed Bell 30, 1986; September complaint 830.10(b) crash is Title 49 of the Code Section years after this. it was filed less than two answers whether Regulations of Federal very improperly this issue was any At the least to have had for Palmer was reasonable disposed summary judgment; of on a rea- by September “engine trouble” inkling of certainly find trier of fact could sonable simply regulation provides The obey that it was reasonable for Palmer to clearly: unambiguous federal law. or its [p]rior to the time [NTSB] takes custo- representative authorized Further, understand how the cannot cargo, mail or wreckage, dy aircraft distinguish this case from Hane- court can cargo may not wreckage, mail or such prohibits her long as federal law buth. As except to the ex- or moved be disturbed site, proposi- inspecting the crash from necessary: tent court, Op. at n. by the tion conceded (1) persons injured To remove position pursue Palmer is in no better trapped; liability plain- than were the products wreckage fur- (2) protect the from To Hanebuth, who were unable to tiffs damage; or ther wreckage the crash until five locate (3) public injury. the crash. protect the after To (1989) 830.10(b) (emphasis add- 49 C.F.R. § purpose of sight has lost The court ed). discovery rule ad- discovery rule. The case, representatives of NTSB In this statutory time when the dresses site to take get to the crash begins a claim within which one must until custody of the instead addresses wheth- to run. The court in the record that There is no evidence a “reasonable” amount er Palmer had then anything more before Palmer knew legislature, Op. sue. at 636. time to crash; indeed, the cause of the regarding court, authority to establish has the not contrary. affidavit is to Palmer’s amount of time to sue a “reasonable” according- adopt a statute simply cannot be said that It ly- possi reasonably should have "known n (or eve more bly defective carburetor analysis of the dis- Under the court’s trouble”) Septem “engine broadly, had. not released covery if the NTSB 30th, ber the two- until one month before the aircraft possibility investigation into such a be crash, Palmer anniversary of the year her for a decision faults fore then. Such a “reason- one month or would have either to the crash having raced the NTSB identify plane’s of time to able” amount prohib it.2 Federal law site and disturbed and file a component defective say To that Palmer rea its such action.3 If component manufacturer. investiga sonably identifying suspect compo- we assume necessarily implies tion before then experts are nec- nents, determining which lawfully Presum done so. she could in- components, and essary analyze the advocating Palm ably, the court is not components to de- testing the specting and violate fed similarly situated er and others defective, components are termine which eral law. month, counsel for than one take more will One, counsel can two choices. arguably Palmer has that Palmer The earliest date that a thoroughly at the risk access to the acquired lawful could have second-guess the reason- judge trial will conceivably could have found crash site of time taken and of the amount ableness something concerning the cause knowing unauthorized remov- Op. ment for the precisely the court does. See This what is al, withholding any part of a concealment or (implying the estate’s failure at 634-35 n. 4 aircraft). U.S.C.App. also 49 "dilatory.”) wrecked to violate federal law 1987) 1471(a)(1) (provides civil (Supp.V for a § $1,000 1987) § of 49 C.F.R. 830.- (pro- for a violation 1472(p) (Supp.V fine of U.S.C.App. § 3. 49 10(b)). years imprison- up to for a fine and ten vides Two, complaint. Palmer’s may dismiss parts simply obtain a list can

counsel compo- manufactured a everybody who

sue aircraft, though even

nent used any suing no for has factual basis

counsel

particular manufacturer. having filed

will not be dismissed limitations, the statute of but

beyond may, probably Rule sanctions

Civil

should, really Do we want be horrendous. for baseless law- provide incentive all I possible defendants?

suits court Apparently not. thinks oth-

think

erwise. quite is from an air

This case different survivors, in which there are wit-

disaster

nesses, readily other available sources of “engine trouble”

evidence investigated at the

might be inferred or frequently

very outset. The able NTSB custody wreckage within hours

to take such circumstances it

of a crash. Under expect reasonable to survivors or begin

representatives decedents inves- plane

tigation of the causes of a crash

immediately. were no Here there surviv- witnesses,

ors, investigato- no and no other Further, explore. it

ry avenues

illegal inspect for Palmer to be- Our

fore settled holds that statute of limitations

of law Ac- to run before that date.

cannot

cordingly, dissent. FLISOCK, Appellant,

Peter E. Alaska, DIVISION

The STATE OF BENEFITS,

RETIREMENT AND

Appellee.

No. S-3725.

Supreme of Alaska. Court 4, 1991.

Oct.

Case Details

Case Name: Palmer v. Borg-Warner Corp.

Court Name: Alaska Supreme Court

Date Published: Nov 16, 1990

Citation: 818 P.2d 632

Docket Number: S-3318

Court Abbreviation: Alaska