10 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2001 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Burgess Construction Co. v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Co. v. State, 614 P.2d 1380 (Alaska 1980), we discussed the exception at length: The public duty exception to which we referred in Manson-Osberg is generally held applicable to public utilities and common carriers, and is based on two principles. 1984The purposes behind the public duty exception are set forth in Burgess Construction v. State, 614 P.2d 1380 (Alaska 1980): The public duty exception to which we referred in Manson-Osberg is generally held applicable to public utilities and common carriers, and is based on two principles. | 3 | 5 |
Adams v. Stategreen2 sentences1985The public duty doctrine does have an impressive pedigree. 3 But with due respect for those courts in other states which continue to adhere to the doctrine, we think the “duty to all, duty to no-one” rule is outmoded, artificial, and “in reality a form of sovereign immunity.” Id. at 241 . 1985As we said in Adams , to allow the public duty doctrine to provide governments with special protection “would create immunity where the legislature has not.” 555 P.2d at 242 . | 2 | 2 |
Leake v. Caingreen1 sentence2001See Leake v. Cain, 720 P.2d 152, 158 (Colo.1986) (citing cases); John H. | 1 | 1 |
Rogers & Babler, Div. of Mapco Alaska v. Stategreen1 sentence1989See Rogers & Babler v. State, 713 P.2d 795, 798-99 (Alaska 1986); Burgess Constr. *652 Co. v. State, 614 P.2d 1380, 1381-83 (Alaska 1980). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.green1 sentence1989In State v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 723 P.2d 76, 78-79 (Alaska 1986), the Dalton Highway indemnity regulation was struck down, not because it was overridden by the public duty exception, but because it was not authorized by statute. 11 .AS 44.62.030 provides: No regulation adopted is valid or effective unless consistent with the statute and reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of the statute. | 1 | 1 |
City of Kotzebue v. McLeangreen2 sentences1987While the public duty doctrine does protect the state from becoming the insurer of all private activity and from undue interference with its ability to govern, we believe that these concerns are better addressed by the tort concept of duty, which limits the class of people which may seek to hold the state responsible for negligent action, and by AS 09.50.250. 702 P.2d at 1313 (citation and footnote omitted). 1987While the public duty doctrine does protect the state from becoming the insurer of all private activity and from undue interference with its ability to govern, we believe that these concerns are better addressed by the tort concept of duty, which limits the class of people which may seek to hold the state responsible for negligent action, and by AS 09.50.250. 702 P.2d at 1313 (citation and footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ryan v. Statered2 sentences1985See Adams, 555 P.2d at 241 . 5 Duty to Protect McLean 6 In Ryan v. State, 134 Ariz. 308 , 656 P.2d 597, 599 (1982) (en banc) the court observed that it was “well aware that by removing the public/private duty doctrine, we have not solved all of the problems in this area.” More specifically, the Arizona court stated: We deem an ad hoc approach to be most appropriate for the further development of the law in this field. 1985See Adams, 555 P.2d at 241 . 5 Duty to Protect McLean 6 In Ryan v. State, 134 Ariz. 308 , 656 P.2d 597, 599 (1982) (en banc) the court observed that it was “well aware that by removing the public/private duty doctrine, we have not solved all of the problems in this area.” More specifically, the Arizona court stated: We deem an ad hoc approach to be most appropriate for the further development of the law in this field. | 1 | 1 |
Cracraft v. City of St. Louis Parkgreen2 sentences1985In Cracraft , the Minnesota Supreme Court observed that private citizens generally have no duty to do the things that the public duty doctrine protects; if governments are to be treated the same as citizens, then governments should not be liable for breaches of duties that citizens do not owe to each other. 279 N.W.2d at 805, 806 . 1985In Cracraft , the Minnesota Supreme Court observed that private citizens generally have no duty to do the things that the public duty doctrine protects; if governments are to be treated the same as citizens, then governments should not be liable for breaches of duties that citizens do not owe to each other. 279 N.W.2d at 805, 806 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kuhn v. State
green
2 sentences1989It would be “unfair” to allow it to impose liability-avoiding agreements on those it is supposed to serve, since the airlines have no choice but to accept such agreements if they wish to use the airport. 8 Our decision in Kuhn v. State, 692 P.2d 261 (Alaska 1984), supports the application of the public duty exception in this case. 1986In Kuhn v. State, 692 P.2d 261 (Alaska 1984), we held that the public duty exception applied and voided the indemnity agreement contained in a contract between the state and travellers on the Dalton Highway, a restricted access road. | 3 | 1985–1989 |
Manson-Osberg Company v. State
green
2 sentences1989We find it unnecessary to rule on these contentions because coverage of the accident in question under the indemnity clause would, in any event, be barred by the public duty exception. 3 In Manson-Osberg Co. v. State, 552 P.2d 654 (Alaska 1976), this court recognized an exception to the general rule that an indemnity agreement does not violate public policy by indemnifying the indemnitee for its own negligence: There are, however, instances when a court will not give effect to a contractual provision indemnifying the indemnitee’s own negligence. 1984The exception was first acknowledged by this court in Manson-Osberg Co. v. State, 552 P.2d 654 (Alaska 1976). | 2 | 1984–1989 |
Air Transport Associates, Inc., a Corporation v. United States
green
1 sentence1989The court relied on an earlier Ninth Circuit case, Air Transport Assoc. v. United States, 221 F.2d 467 (9th Cir.1955), which held that the public duty exception barred the federal government from enforcing liability release provisions for its own negligent operation of the airport. 6 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Stephan & Sons, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage
green
1 sentence1986Burgess, 614 P.2d 1380 ; Stephan & Sons, 629 P.2d 71 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence1984In Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 33 P.2d 974 (Colo.1934), an indemnity agreement between Otis and the Oil Exchange Building was held unenforceable: In the case at bar, the public was concerned with the security of such of its *265 citizens as would use the elevator maintained for such use. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Richard J. Griffin and Mary Jane Griffin, His Wife v. United States
green
2 sentences1976Other courts have found a duty where the statute under which the state acted was for the special benefit of the plaintiffs. 20 Duty to yet a larger class is found in Griffin v. United States, 500 F.2d 1059 , (3rd Cir. 1974), and Campbell v. City of Bellevue, 85 Wash.2d 1 , 530 P.2d 234 (1975). 1976Other courts have found a duty where the statute under which the state acted was for the special benefit of the plaintiffs. [20] Duty to yet a larger class is found in Griffin v. United States, 500 F.2d 1059 , (3rd Cir.1974), and Campbell v. City of Bellevue, 85 Wash.2d 1 , 530 P.2d 234 (1975). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Campbell v. City of Bellevue
green
2 sentences1976Other courts have found a duty where the statute under which the state acted was for the special benefit of the plaintiffs. 20 Duty to yet a larger class is found in Griffin v. United States, 500 F.2d 1059 , (3rd Cir. 1974), and Campbell v. City of Bellevue, 85 Wash.2d 1 , 530 P.2d 234 (1975). 1976Other courts have found a duty where the statute under which the state acted was for the special benefit of the plaintiffs. 20 Duty to yet a larger class is found in Griffin v. United States, 500 F.2d 1059 , (3rd Cir. 1974), and Campbell v. City of Bellevue, 85 Wash.2d 1 , 530 P.2d 234 (1975). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Schuster v. City of New York
green
2 sentences1976Some courts have found an exception to the public duty doctrine where the defendant has a special relationship with the plaintiff individually, 19 as in Schuster v. City of New York, 5 N.Y.2d 75 , 180 N.Y.S.2d 265 , 154 N.E.2d 534 (N.Y.1958), where the police department was found to have a special duty to a citizen who had provided information about a criminal, and requested protection. 1976Some courts have found an exception to the public duty doctrine where the defendant has a special relationship with the plaintiff individually, 19 as in Schuster v. City of New York, 5 N.Y.2d 75 , 180 N.Y.S.2d 265 , 154 N.E.2d 534 (N.Y.1958), where the police department was found to have a special duty to a citizen who had provided information about a criminal, and requested protection. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.