Getchell v. Lodge

Supreme Court of Alaska · Torts

TortsNegligenceNegligence per seExcused statutory violationEvidenceExpert testimonynegligencetraffic regulations

Facts

On a dark winter morning, Lodge was driving about forty-five miles per hour on an icy, unsanded highway when a moose emerged into her lane. She braked hard, immediately skidded, rotated, lost control, and crossed the center line into the oncoming lane, where Getchell's car struck Lodge's vehicle and Getchell injured her ankle. At trial, Lodge testified that she did not purposefully steer into the oncoming lane, and her accident reconstruction expert testified that the rotation began in Lodge's lane and that he knew of no evidence that she intended to swerve into oncoming traffic. State Trooper Harold Leichliter investigated the accident and later testified that the moose was the only contributing factor and that he found no evidence of improper conduct by Lodge.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in denying Getchell's motions for JNOV and new trial after the jury found Lodge not negligent despite her crossing the center line, and whether the court erred in admitting the investigating trooper's causation testimony. More specifically, the court considered whether there was sufficient evidence for jurors to find Lodge's traffic-law violation excused and whether the trooper's testimony was properly admitted under Rules 702 and 403.

Rule

A court must affirm denial of JNOV unless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, reasonable persons could not differ on the facts. Denial of a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be disturbed only in exceptional circumstances, with abuse existing when evidence supporting the verdict is completely lacking or so slight and unconvincing that the verdict is plainly unreasonable and unjust. A violation of traffic regulations may be excused when the driver, acting non-negligently, is confronted with an emergency not due to her own misconduct or is unable after reasonable care to comply. An investigating officer who is intimately involved in the events may offer hybrid fact-and-expert testimony if qualified and if the testimony is helpful to the jury, and relevant testimony is excluded under Rule 403 only when unfair prejudice demonstrably outweighs probative value.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

On a dark winter morning outside Fairbanks, Nina Carver drove 8 miles below the speed limit on an icy, unsanded road because she knew elk often crossed there. An elk suddenly bounded into her lane, and when she braked, her car immediately spun and slid across the center line into Omar Ruiz's oncoming pickup. Omar sued, relying on Nina's center-line violation, and the jury found Nina not negligent.

If Omar moves for JNOV, what is the best argument for denying the motion?

Explanation. A traffic-law violation may be excused if the driver, acting without negligence, is confronted with an emergency not due to her own misconduct or is unable after reasonable care to comply. On JNOV review, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and affirms unless reasonable persons could not differ. Here, the elk, darkness, and ice provide evidence from which reasonable jurors could find excuse. (Derived from Getchell v. Lodge (n.d.).)