| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
|
You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Moore v. Peak Oilfield Service Co. (02/15/2008) sp-6230
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before
publication in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are
requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk
of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878,
e-mail corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
| SHAWN E. MOORE, | ) |
| ) Supreme Court Nos. S- 11969/11990 | |
| Appellant/Cross-Appellee, | ) |
| ) Superior Court No. 3KN-03- 263 CI | |
| v. | ) |
| ) O P I N I O N | |
| PEAK OILFIELD SERVICE COMPANY; | ) |
| PEAK ALASKA VENTURES, INC.; | ) No. 6230 February 15, 2008 |
| NABORS ALASKA SERVICES CORP., | ) |
| ) | |
| Appellees/Cross-Appellants. | ) |
| ) | |
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State
of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Kenai,
Charles T. Huguelet, Judge.
Appearances: Steve Sims, Law Offices of
Steve Sims, Anchorage, for Appellant/Cross-
Appellee. Gary A. Zipkin, Guess & Rudd P.C.,
Anchorage, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Matthews,
Eastaugh, and Carpeneti, Justices. [Bryner,
Justice, not participating.]
PER CURIAM
Shawn Moores truck overturned after running into a dead
moose in the center of the road. His passenger, Shannon Parnell,
was critically injured. Parnell sued Peak Oilfield Service
Company, the owner of the truck that had hit the moose sometime
earlier. Peak then filed a third-party claim against Moore for
allocation of fault. Because the jury found that Peak was not
liable for Parnells injuries, it did not reach the question of
Moores comparative fault. In a separate appeal we reversed and
remanded the issue of Peaks liability for a new trial.1
This appeal considers the same trial, but involves the
superior courts failure to rule that Moore was negligent and
reckless as a matter of law because he was driving while
intoxicated at the time of the accident. Peak moved for such a
ruling based on Moores conviction of driving while intoxicated in
violation of AS 28.35.030. The conviction was based on Moores
plea of no contest to the charge.
This case is controlled by our recent decision in Lamb
v. Anderson.2 In Lamb we held that
a conviction based on a no contest plea will
collaterally estop the criminal defendant
from denying any element in a subsequent
civil action against him that was necessarily
established by the conviction, as long as the
prior conviction was for a serious criminal
offense and the defendant in fact had the
opportunity for a full and fair hearing.[3]
The Lamb factors are satisfied in this case. Driving while
intoxicated is a serious criminal offense.4 Moore had the
opportunity for a full and fair hearing on his criminal charge.
He was represented by a public defender when he entered his plea.
Both negligence and recklessness are established by a
conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated.5 Thus,
Moore is estopped from denying his negligence and recklessness at
the time of the accident. But his ultimate liability remains an
open question. Whether Moores negligence and recklessness caused
the accident is not an issue that was necessarily established by
his conviction. Moore is therefore not barred by the conviction
from arguing that his negligence and recklessness were not a
legal cause of the accident.
The superior courts denial of Peaks motion for partial
summary judgment is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.6
_______________________________
1 Parnell v. Peak Oilfield Serv. Co., __ P.3d __, Op. No.
6198 (Alaska, Nov. 9, 2007).
2 147 P.3d 736 (Alaska 2006). In Wilson v. MacDonald we
discussed the application of Lamb in a case where the criminal
defendant pled no contest before Lamb clarified the civil
implications of this plea. Wilson v. MacDonald, 168 P.3d 887
(Alaska 2007). In Wilson we noted that a party seeking to avoid
the civil consequences of a no contest plea must do so through a
motion for post-conviction relief or appeal in the criminal case.
Id. at 889.
3 Lamb, 147 P.3d at 742.
4 Id. at 744 n.51. Moore was sentenced to ten days of
unsuspended jail time for the offense.
5 Lupro v. State, 603 P.2d 468, 475 (Alaska 1979) (DWI
involves culpable negligence defined as a reckless disregard of
consequences, a needless indifference to the rights and safety
and even the lives of others).
6 This disposition moots Peaks argument concerning an
evidentiary use of Moores conviction and Moores cross-appeal
concerning costs and attorneys fees.
 |
| Case Law Statutes, Regs & Rules Constitutions Miscellaneous |
|
