Lexplug logoLexplug

State of Alaska v. Susan H. Abbott, Guardian of Brenda Vogt, a minor

Supreme Court of Alaska
498 P.2d 712 (1972)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The discretionary function exception to sovereign immunity protects planning-level policy decisions but does not shield the state from liability for negligence in operational-level decisions made to implement that policy. Once the state exercises its discretion to maintain public highways, it owes a duty of reasonable care in performing that maintenance.


Facts:

  • Brenda Vogt, age 13, was a passenger in a car driven by her mother, Delores Vogt, on the Seward Highway in January.
  • While on a sharp curve known to be hazardous, the vehicle skidded on ice, crossed the center line, and collided with a truck.
  • Brenda Vogt was thrown through the windshield and suffered severe, permanent brain damage.
  • The highway at the curve was covered with ice, was rutted from maintenance procedures, and had an undulating superelevation.
  • Prior to the accident, numerous similar accidents had occurred at the same curve, and the State had been given notice of these hazardous conditions.

Procedural Posture:

  • Brenda Vogt, through her guardian, brought a negligence action against the State of Alaska in the superior court (trial court).
  • Vogt had previously settled a separate claim against her mother, Delores Vogt, out of court.
  • A bench trial was held before a superior court judge, sitting without a jury.
  • The trial court found the State was negligent in its maintenance of the highway curve and that this negligence was a proximate cause of Vogt's injuries, along with the concurrent negligence of her mother.
  • The trial court ruled that the state's actions did not fall under the discretionary function exception to sovereign immunity.
  • The trial court entered a judgment of $216,000 against the State.
  • The State of Alaska (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
  • Brenda Vogt (appellee) filed a cross-appeal challenging the adequacy of the damages and attorney's fees.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the discretionary function exception to the state's waiver of sovereign immunity bar a negligence claim against the State of Alaska for its failure to properly maintain a known hazardous highway curve in winter?


Opinions:

Majority - Erwin, Justice.

No, the discretionary function exception does not bar the claim. While the initial policy decision to maintain highways is a protected discretionary function, the subsequent operational acts of implementing that policy, such as sanding and salting a specific curve, are not. The court adopts the planning-operational distinction to interpret the discretionary function exception. Planning-level decisions, which involve the evaluation of broad policy factors like financial, political, and social effects, are immune from suit. In contrast, operational-level decisions, which involve the day-to-day implementation of established policy, are not immune. Once the state made the planning-level decision to maintain highways in winter, it assumed a duty to perform that maintenance with reasonable care. The specific choices regarding how to sand, salt, and maintain a known dangerous curve are operational decisions that fall outside the exception, making the state liable for negligence in carrying them out.



Analysis:

This decision formally adopts the 'planning-operational' distinction for interpreting Alaska's discretionary function exception, significantly narrowing the scope of sovereign immunity. By distinguishing high-level policy formation from the day-to-day implementation of that policy, the ruling holds government agencies to a standard of reasonable care for their operational activities. This creates a precedent that allows citizens to hold the state accountable for negligence in routine government functions, such as infrastructure maintenance, ensuring that the waiver of sovereign immunity has a meaningful effect in protecting the public from government torts.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query State of Alaska v. Susan H. Abbott, Guardian of Brenda Vogt, a minor (1972) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for State of Alaska v. Susan H. Abbott, Guardian of Brenda Vogt, a minor