*1 Alaska, a tions must also include ties m adopting consideration of from such codes at public all, policy by necessary to be advanced as the financial commitment right complete of a decision. While the creation to assure enforcement—and the inspection respond damages action for negligent ability would to well —could persons by crippling benefit the harmed fires which effects. subsequently negligence, result from such My research has unearthed no case against adverse must balanced imposed liability has been liability effects which such a can have entity governmental safety the enforcement of fire codes. spection, course, the assuming, of absence potential liability inspecting, for fail- or special relationship to the one of either immediately ure to remedy discovered de- by govern- injured, or direct control fects, might well dissuade enforcement of- per- harm. I am ment of the instrument of conducting inspections ficers from all. at policies un- reasoning suaded that the Alternatively, if the enforcement officers are derlying discussed above the cases peril being must at act sued for the be- I hold that in the case sound.8 would poor judgment particu- in selecting use of liability arise because fore us no could enforcement, might lar means of the effect inspection en- putatively negligent or well to evoke these officers by agents of the forcement of situation, response in i. most extreme state. e., complete buildings closure of for even su- judgment of the I affirm would safety pending minor fire perior court.9 think correction. do not that such results overall, promote do, public interest.
Fire, health, safety laws are diffi- through ac- governmental
cult enforce compliance total alone. To assure
tion expenditure of require an enormous would Petitioner, by STATE money government. time To v. through large extent must occur owners, al., Respondents. voluntary property who action L. et Millie JENNINGS are suit for caused Petitioner, FAIRBANKS, CITY OF under their structures control. defective v. in mind that certain econom- must be borne INC., al., Respondents. HOTEL, et NORDALE operative pressures observance ic are 2322, 2423. re- Nos. fire and codes because by financing institu- imposed quirements Supreme of Alaska. Court tions, professional companies, insurance 1, 1976. reputable engineers, contrac- architects tors, unions. and labor upon impose liability governmental
To adequately enforce for failure
entities may discourage some safety codes
fire and
them, particularly the smaller communi-
liability
government
noteworthy
exception
tort
eases are
tion”
these
Abbott,
sovereign
jurisdictions
im-
under AS 09.50.250.
from
abolished,
a discussion
munity
so
Merdes, Schaible, Staley & DeLisio, Fair- banks, petitioner, State of Alaska. Hagans, Charles W. Hagans, Smith Brown, & Anchorage, petitioner, City Jay Fairbanks, Hodges, F. for Jennings, Langton, Thorpe & McGown. McCaskey, Kenneth R. Robison, Lamb of Reynolds, Lekisch, Anchorage, Frankel & Shake, Cameron, Shake, Douglas, R. W. Simpson and Sherwood. Rice, Brown, T. Hoppner
Patrick & Iiedland, Fairbanks, Reynolds and Robert Reynolds Tobey, Anchorage, & for re- spondents, Inc. storage of combusti- improper signs; exit OPINION construction, including ; and bles unsafe RABINOWITZ, J., and CON- C. Before knew The state insulation. sawdust ERWIN, BOOCHEVER NOR, either did not abate them hazards and BURKE, JJ. directly through the hotel. BURKE, Justice. *3 un However, not the state had present issues and Hotel for review petitions dertaken These in had today as it hazards therein those decided eliminate fire closely related to the On There Feb- Hotel. Adams State.1 case of the Gold Rush opinion our in in the fore, in Fair- we found the law 22, 1972,the Nordale common ruary fire, killing in Adams cannot totally state had assumed was consumed the banks fire Instead, sur- the The state injuring and others. people, 11 established office, in with personal representatives marshal’s accordance vivors City Alaska and Fair policy, sued the State deferred those killed pur prevention agency Nor- fire for the City (as well the the of Fairbanks banks’ prevention and poses failure correct for fire Hotel) dale Thus, city for limits The state moved the fire hazards. within known city complaints for marshal referred summary judgment, and moved state the the fire city fire trial the the on the When the Nordale Hotel to judgment about motions, action; city the in the state and for conducted court denied both marshal granted re- initiated There petitioned spection review. We and enforcement. for fore, any liability rest similarity of of the state must of the the issues view because in Adams either the state to those before us v. State. on one two theories: absolutely permitting any viola liable unabated, tion of to continue indirectly through state or the is liable first the state’s We shall discuss reject the As the sec city. We first. petition. the denial of mo ond, find principal- we do not kind of summary judgment, tion for we must de relationship and agent between the state genuine there is termine whether issue of city in these circumstances which would party fact whether the moving justify holding vicariously liable state judgment is entitled to on the law applicable city’s negligence. for the AS 18.70.090 Adams, to the established As facts.2 provides in part: here; no genuine there is issue of fact Department Safety and of Public issue The to be resolved is one of law: department fire the chief of each responsible whether state can be held representatives in and their authorized resulting tort for the deaths and may areas enforce the respective from the Nordale Hotel fire. regulations adopted by the De- rules and state’s The involvement in the saga of partment Safety preven- of Public for the quite the Nordale Hotel was different from life protection tion of fire or for the Hotel, its involvement Rush Gold panic. . property against fire or . . undisputed discussed Adams. It is Hotel, the statute would indicate language an building, older can enforce tained serious fire fire chief including any adequate escapes; independently fire state standards obsolete ex- delegation tinguishers; by the Fire Of- system substandard Marshal’s alarm (Alaska (Alaska 1973), 1976). court 555 P.2d 235 283 summary judgment pointed mo- out proffered Braund, tions, “[¡Inferences White, 50, of fact from the Inc. v. 486 P.2d op- (Alaska party 1971). proofs in favor of the also Nizinski v. are drawn Bee Golden Valley Ass’n, posing Inc., the movant.” the motion and Electric 509 P.2d developed its of Fairbanks does not enjoy fice. The pro even the limited pro- protection and enforcement tection afforded own fire the state AS 09.50.250. control,3 gram, to state We held in City Schaible, not Fairbanks v. manner, enforce, proceeded in some P.2d 201 that there was municipal state deferred to no immunity state fire standards. The in Alaska. The de city; nial in the case of the Nordale judgment motion specifically pleadings proper. asserted that would was responsible for enforcement. Under PART, REVERSED IN AFFIRMED circumstances, the state cannot PART, IN AND REMANDED FOR city’s negligence. held for the There- liable TRIAL. fore, summary the motion for improperly CONNOR, favor of the state denied. was (dissenting). Justice For the in my reasons stated dissent in II (Alaska *4 imposition pos- moved for dissent from the 1976) motion, liability upon sible well-pleaded allegations of non-moving party accepted must be as true.4 allegations
Those are that the made
systematic inspections Ho
tel, 1953; commencing in that as a result inspections, numerous sent person
requests agents, via letter and in employees and owners ANDERSON, Michael Appellant, requesting they bring structure into codes, building with the Alaska, Appellee. STATE of codes, codes, and fire all of which the Nor- No. 2406. do; agents dale refused to that the employees were in al Supreme Court of Alaska. lowing operate the Nordale Hotel to in vio 1976. negli lation of the laws and were further gent failing hotel; to condemn the proximate direct and result of negligence plaintiffs city, have injuries. deaths agree
suffered We
with the trial allegations court that these
are sufficient to state a cause of action city. All the criteria for liabil
ity set forth in apply undertook to
Hotel, and in discovered
recognized fire duty hazards. regard
take áction with to those
and that ran plaintiffs
decedents, occupants of the Nordale.5 The constitutionally recognized
3. Home Rule is 2A J. Moore. Federal § Practice 12.15 Alaska; X, (2d Ed.1975). Art. Alaska Constitution. Sharp, Home Rule A Clash Be Court, tween the Constitution Whether action or inaction (1973). is, course, negligence UCLA-Alaska L.R. 1 stituted to be resolved at trial.