Alaska Liability Law For Employers

Respondeat Superior is a legal doctrine holding employers liable for the wrongful acts of employees occurring within scope of employment. Essentially, Respondeat Superior means “let the master answer,” holding an employer responsible for the actions of their employees under certain circumstances. This doctrine stems from the idea that employers benefit from an employees’ work. Therefore, the employer is also responsible for harm their employees cause while acting within the scope of their employment. 

Vicarious Liability in torts means one party can be held responsible for the tortious acts of another, even if the first party didn’t directly cause the harm. This commonly arises in employer-employee relationships. In other words, the employer can be liable for the negligent actions of an employee if those actions occurred within the scope of employment.  Employers or businesses are often named as a defendants in lawsuits caused by employees on the job.

The doctrines of Respondeat Superior and Vicarious Liability also apply when an employer entrusts a vehicle to an employee. Employers may be liable for an employee’s driving as part of the employee’s job responsibilities. This is true for many states including claims and lawsuits brought under Alaska Liability Laws.

Which Law Applies In Your Situation?

There are other situations in which these and other legal theories apply. Consult an Alaska personal injury attorney to determine the legal theories which apply to your case. A good Alaska personal injury attorney will analyze Alaska Liability Laws and advise you how to proceed.

This Alaska Liability Law information on is Part Two of a two-part series. See Part Two: Alaska Responsibility Rules.

Johnson Law has been helping Alaskans for nearly 30 years. It’s who we are. Call Johnson Law at  (907)277-3090 or use our Contact Form to discuss your serious injury case. We are here to serve you.

And while we hope you never need us… We’re here if you do. ~ Doug Johnson

Negligent Entrustment

Alaska law recognizes and follows the common law tort of negligent entrustment, aligning with the definition found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390. Under Alaska responsibility rules, negligent entrustment occurs when a person provides something (chattel) to another, knowing or having reason to know that the recipient’s youth, inexperience, or other factors make them likely to use it in a way that causes harm. In modern usage, chattel usually refers to tangible movable personal property. Consequently, this legal theory holds the provider liable for injuries resulting from such misuse. 

If you loan your car to an inexperienced or otherwise unsafe driver, it is irresponsible. You may be found negligent. Negligence is not being careful enough, and causing harm. A personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit commonly names the owner of a car in addition to the driver under this legal theory. Even if no statute for owner’s liability exists, it may be possible to prove liability through the theory of negligent entrustment.

Alaska Responsibility Rules Apply In More Situations

There are many situations in which these and other legal theories apply. Consult an Alaska personal injury attorney to determine if these legal concepts apply to your case. A good Alaska personal injury attorney will analyze Alaska Liability Laws and advise you how to proceed.

This information on Alaska Responsibility Rules is Part One of a two-part series. See Part Two: Alaska Liability Law.

Johnson Law has been helping Alaskans under complex legal theories for nearly 30 years. It’s who we are. Call Johnson Law at  (907)277-3090 or use our Contact Form to discuss your serious injury case. We are here to serve you.

And while we hope you never need us… We’re here if you do. ~ Doug Johnson

Source: Justia U.S. Law

Image Source: University of Alaska Anchorage

In Alaska, as in other states, ordinary or civil negligence occurs when someone fails to act with the reasonable care that a prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another. Therefore, Negligence In Alaska is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the amount of care a reasonably careful person would use in the same situation. The reasonable person standard determines whether the person acted with the necessary care in the given situation.

Manufacturer Negligence

A classic example of manufacturer negligence is the Ford Pinto case, where Ford Motor Company knowingly used a flawed fuel tank design that made the Pinto susceptible to explosions in rear-end collisions, and chose not to fix it due to the cost for recall and replacement. Ford’s decision led to numerous injuries and deaths, and the company faced significant legal repercussions. 

The Ford Pinto case, particularly the Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company (1981) lawsuit, significantly impacted product liability law across the United States, including negligence in Alaska, by shaping the legal landscape and emphasizing corporate responsibility. 

Contributory Negligence

Contributory negligence is when a plaintiff’s conduct increases the chance of an injury. In other words, the person suffering injuries fails to protect himself from the injury. The plaintiff is also negligent because he should have been able to avoid the injury.

For instance, a defective blow torch explodes and blows up seriously injuring a person’s eyes. The injured person did not wear safety goggles. Yes, the torch manufacturer was negligent through selling a defective torch. Unfortunately, the person suffering injuries was also negligent, contributing to their injuries by failing to wear safety goggles. The goggles, may have prevented some portion of injuries. This example is important in understanding negligence in Alaska.

Car crashes often occur due to one or more person’s negligence. In a crash, the person who primarily causes the accident may attempt to blame the other party too. Accordingly, the defendant may try to place some or all liability on the plaintiff. This legal theory is contributory negligence. This legal theory influences negligence in Alaska.

Comparative Negligence In Alaska

In some states, a plaintiff loses his claim if he is even 1% at fault. In Alaska, a comparative negligence system governs negligence claims. Liability is based on each person’s amount of fault for the injuries. If the plaintiff is partly to blame for his injuries, then his damage award reduces proportionally.

 Think of it this way, comparative negligence in Alaska means compensation is often reduced by the plaintiff’s contribution of fault for their injuries. However, when a plaintiff is 50% or greater at fault for injuries, they may not be able to recover any damages at all. 

Understand Law Governing Negligence In Alaska

If you or a family member is hurt due to another person’ negligence in Alaska, get help. An experienced Alaska personal injury attorney will analyze negligence in every case. The attorney will advise you how to proceed.

 Johnson Law has been helping Alaskans for nearly 30 years. It’s who we are. Call Johnson Law at  (907)277-3090 or use our Contact Form to discuss your Alaska accident injury case. We are here to serve you.

And while we hope you never need us… We’re here if you do. ~ Doug Johnson

Source: Alaska Court System; Justia: U.S. Law

Image Source: Alaska Beacon

Claim Example

A family called me about their son, “Jason” – a young man (16 years old) who was badly injured during a single-vehicle roll-over. The driver, Harvey, lost control of his vehicle and rolled off Chena Hot Springs Rd. Jason was not wearing his seatbelt. Harvey’s auto insurance company told Jason’s family: “Jason’s injuries are Jason’s own fault. Jason should have worn a seatbelt. Go away.”

Jason’s medical and surgical bills totaled more than $129,000. Jason will live with 60+ years of pain and limited mobility because of this wreck. The insurance company declined to provide any help for Jason and his family.

Proving Liability

Proving the liability claim denied by the insurance company: We gathered the police report, visited the scene, spoke with Harvey, measured and photographed the pickup truck, located the pickup’s “black box” and performed appropriate legal research. Initially, we confirmed: (1) that Harvey was negligent because the Rules of The Road require drivers to stay within their lane unless it is safe to leave it (13 AAC 02.085); and (2) that Harvey’s insurance company was only partially correct: Any part of Jason’s injuries caused by Jason’s failure to wear a seatbelt were Jason’s responsibility, not Harvey’s. Hutchins v. Schwartz, 724 P.2d 1194, 1199 (Alaska 1986).

Next, we focused on Jason’s injuries and whether they were caused not wearing a seatbelt.

We hired an Expert to investigate whether the lack of a seatbelt contributed to Jason’s injuries. The Expert performed extensive tests. He evaluated damage of Harvey’s pickup. The Expert’s report showed the insurance company was wrong. The Expert concluded: “No. Jason’s failure to wear a seatbelt in no way caused or made Jason’s injuries worse.” There was no connection between Jason’s failure to wear a seatbelt and Jason’s injuries. The crushed roof of the pickup impacted the pickup’s bench seatback. Because the roof was so badly crushed, if Jason had been wearing a seatbelt, he might have died in the crash. In other words, Jason was eligible for the insurance that Harvey’s and Jason’s families had purchased to protect them.

Resident Relative Claim

After we put together Jason’s case, Harvey’s insurance company paid Jason full liability “Policy Limits” of $100,000 under Harvey’s auto policy. It also paid Jason full Underinsured Motorist “Policy Limits” of another $100,000.

Finally, Jason’s family purchased auto insurance. They purchased both Uninsured Underinsured Insurance and Medical Payment Insurance. The family policy paid Jason an Underinsured Motorist “Policy Limit” of $50,000 as his mother’s Resident Relative. The family policy also paid Jason’s medical bills. The insurance also paid for the vocational rehabilitation Jason needs.

Johnson Law has been helping Alaskans for nearly 30 years. It’s who we are.

And while we hope you never need us… We’re here if you do. ~ Doug Johnson

Please call Johnson Law to discuss your case: (907)277-3090 or use our online contact form.

Sources: Investopedia; Alaska Administrative Code; Justia U.S. Law

Image Source: Lovelace Health System

Negligence is a Civil Justice Matter

Determining who is at fault in a traffic accident is a matter of deciding who was negligent. In many cases, your instincts will tell you that a driver, cyclist or pedestrian acted carelessly, but not what Civil Justice rule or rules the negligent person violated. An attorney reviews a number of resources to help you determine who was at fault for your accident, such as police reports, state traffic laws, and witnesses.

Negligence is not a Crime

What determines if an injury is a crime or negligence? An injured person is described as a victim. Justice for the victim is determined by how the injury happened. The question is: “Was the injury an accident or was the injury on purpose?“

• Negligence = Accident
• Crime = On Purpose

When one person hurts another on purpose, they have committed a crime and are punished within the criminal justice system criminal. A purely negligent person does not intend to hurt another person. For example: A driver distracted by traffic behind him does not see a red light in time. The distracted driver is unable to stop. He accidentally hits another vehicle while trying to stop. The distracted driver made a mistake. He was negligent. The negligent driver is responsible for the damages. The Civil Justice system addresses injuries caused by accidents. This is also true in cases which are not caused by driver negligence.

Civil Justice in Negligence Cases

Personal injury and negligence cases often resolve with a settlement agreement before trial is needed. When parties do not agree to settle the claim, a lawsuit is required. Johnson Law, P.C. works hard to settle our clients’ car accident cases without the court.

In some cases, we must file a lawsuit and go to trial. The civil justice system allows a person or entity (the plaintiff) to sue another person or entity (the defendant) for harm or wrongdoing. In negligence claims, justice is determined by the cost of the damages. Courts look to a number of factors in determining whether a driver was negligent in Civil Justice cases. Some of these factors include, but aren’t limited to, the following:

• Disobeying traffic signs or signals
• Failing to signal while turning
• Driving above or below the posted speed limit
• Disregarding weather or traffic conditions
• Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol

Alaskan Civil Justice law requires a negligent person to assist the victim of the negligence, or to assist the family of the victim. Money is the leading way to assist the victim in a negligence claim. In other words, society does not punish a negligent person with a jail sentence. Society asks a negligent person to pay for the damages they caused.

Johnson Law, P.C. has been helping Alaskans for nearly 30 years. It’s who we are.

And while we hope you never need us… We’re here if you do.

Please call Johnson Law, P.C. to discuss your case: (907)277-3090 or use our online contact form.

Secondary Source: FindLaw, “Car Accident Basics“

Image Source: RAND Institute for Civil Justice