Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mattingly v. Sheldon Jackson Collegegreen2 sentences1998Under Mattingly v. Sheldon Jackson College, 743 P.2d 356, 365-66 (Alaska 1987), a bystander claim is permissible when a person closely related to a tort victim and in near proximity to the scene of the negligent injury suffers severe and foreseeable emotional distress due to "shock result[ing] more or less contemporaneously with," or "follow[ing] closely on the heels of," the injury's discovery. 1998Under Mattingly v. Sheldon Jackson College, 743 P.2d 356, 365-66 (Alaska 1987), a bystander claim is permissible when a person closely related to a tort victim and in near proximity to the scene of the negligent injury suffers severe and foreseeable emotional distress due to “shock resulting] more or less contemporaneously with,” or “follow[ing] closely on the heels of,” the injury’s discovery. | 2 | 2 |
Kallstrom v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2023“Alaska law permits individuals to recover damages on the basis of emotional distress” due to negligent conduct under limited circumstances.57 Generally, damages are not available without a physical injury, except under two narrow exceptions: the bystander exception and the preexisting duty exception.58 The pre- existing duty exception is narrow.59 A plaintiff can recover only based on a contractual 55 Alakayak, 48 P.3d at 448 (quoting Philbin v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 991 P.2d 1263, 1266 (Alaska 1999)). 56 Id. 57 Schack v. Schack, 414 P.3d 639, 641 (Alaska 2018) (citing Kallstrom v. Unite 2023“Alaska law permits individuals to recover damages on the basis of emotional distress” due to negligent conduct under limited circumstances.57 Generally, damages are not available without a physical injury, except under two narrow exceptions: the bystander exception and the preexisting duty exception.58 The pre- existing duty exception is narrow.59 A plaintiff can recover only based on a contractual 55 Alakayak, 48 P.3d at 448 (quoting Philbin v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 991 P.2d 1263, 1266 (Alaska 1999)). 56 Id. 57 Schack v. Schack, 414 P.3d 639, 641 (Alaska 2018) (citing Kallstrom v. Unite | 1 | 2 |
Chizmar v. MacKiegreen2 sentences2023The superior court correctly noted that the State as jailer has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the protection of a prisoner’s life and health similar to a common carrier because prisoners are “confined and cannot avail themselves of normal opportunities for self-protection.”63 “[W]hen the jailer knows or reasonably should have foreseen that [a] prisoner was “incapacitated, suicidal, or otherwise ‘in danger,’ ” a higher degree of care, the “utmost caution,” is warranted to protect the prisoner from physical harm.64 But “the duty to protect is not limitless — the prison ‘should not be th 2002The bystander exception is not applicable to the present case as Hinsberger is not claiming that he suffered emotional distress from witnessing harm to a close relative. 8 . 896 P.2d 196 (Alaska 1995). 9 . | 1 | 2 |
Schack v. Schackgreen1 sentence2023“Alaska law permits individuals to recover damages on the basis of emotional distress” due to negligent conduct under limited circumstances.57 Generally, damages are not available without a physical injury, except under two narrow exceptions: the bystander exception and the preexisting duty exception.58 The pre- existing duty exception is narrow.59 A plaintiff can recover only based on a contractual 55 Alakayak, 48 P.3d at 448 (quoting Philbin v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 991 P.2d 1263, 1266 (Alaska 1999)). 56 Id. 57 Schack v. Schack, 414 P.3d 639, 641 (Alaska 2018) (citing Kallstrom v. Unite | 1 | 1 |
Philbin v. Matanuska-Susitna Boroughgreen2 sentences2023“Alaska law permits individuals to recover damages on the basis of emotional distress” due to negligent conduct under limited circumstances.57 Generally, damages are not available without a physical injury, except under two narrow exceptions: the bystander exception and the preexisting duty exception.58 The pre- existing duty exception is narrow.59 A plaintiff can recover only based on a contractual 55 Alakayak, 48 P.3d at 448 (quoting Philbin v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 991 P.2d 1263, 1266 (Alaska 1999)). 56 Id. 57 Schack v. Schack, 414 P.3d 639, 641 (Alaska 2018) (citing Kallstrom v. Unite 2023“Alaska law permits individuals to recover damages on the basis of emotional distress” due to negligent conduct under limited circumstances.57 Generally, damages are not available without a physical injury, except under two narrow exceptions: the bystander exception and the preexisting duty exception.58 The pre- existing duty exception is narrow.59 A plaintiff can recover only based on a contractual 55 Alakayak, 48 P.3d at 448 (quoting Philbin v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 991 P.2d 1263, 1266 (Alaska 1999)). 56 Id. 57 Schack v. Schack, 414 P.3d 639, 641 (Alaska 2018) (citing Kallstrom v. Unite | 1 | 1 |
Caudle v. Mendelgreen1 sentence2023The superior court correctly noted that the State as jailer has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the protection of a prisoner’s life and health similar to a common carrier because prisoners are “confined and cannot avail themselves of normal opportunities for self-protection.”63 “[W]hen the jailer knows or reasonably should have foreseen that [a] prisoner was “incapacitated, suicidal, or otherwise ‘in danger,’ ” a higher degree of care, the “utmost caution,” is warranted to protect the prisoner from physical harm.64 But “the duty to protect is not limitless — the prison ‘should not be th | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alakayak v. British Columbia Packers, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2023“Alaska law permits individuals to recover damages on the basis of emotional distress” due to negligent conduct under limited circumstances.57 Generally, damages are not available without a physical injury, except under two narrow exceptions: the bystander exception and the preexisting duty exception.58 The pre- existing duty exception is narrow.59 A plaintiff can recover only based on a contractual 55 Alakayak, 48 P.3d at 448 (quoting Philbin v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 991 P.2d 1263, 1266 (Alaska 1999)). 56 Id. 57 Schack v. Schack, 414 P.3d 639, 641 (Alaska 2018) (citing Kallstrom v. Unite | 1 | 2023–2023 |
DSW v. Fairbanks No. Star Bor. Sch. Dist.
green
1 sentence2023The superior court correctly noted that the State as jailer has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the protection of a prisoner’s life and health similar to a common carrier because prisoners are “confined and cannot avail themselves of normal opportunities for self-protection.”63 “[W]hen the jailer knows or reasonably should have foreseen that [a] prisoner was “incapacitated, suicidal, or otherwise ‘in danger,’ ” a higher degree of care, the “utmost caution,” is warranted to protect the prisoner from physical harm.64 But “the duty to protect is not limitless — the prison ‘should not be th | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lawrence
green
1 sentence2018In such a case, the tortfeasor and the injured relative are not the same person. 26 Kallstrom v. United States , 43 P.3d 162 , 168 (Alaska 2002). 27 26 P.3d 1074 (Alaska 2001) ; see also State Farm Mut. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.