James v. General Dynamics

TORT LAW
United States District Court, District of Alaska (2022)

Flora Lipsky


In James v. General Dynamics, 582 F.Supp.3d 673 (D. Alaska 2022), the district court held that,
under Alaska tort law, a manufacturer and ondemand maintenanceservice provider did not owe
a duty of care to inspect an U.S. Armyowned Stryker armored vehicle that struck and killed a
longshoreman in an unloading accident. (Id. at 679). In an incident at the Port of Anchorage, a
longshoreman died when an Armyowned Stryker ran him overallegedly due to brake failure
as he was guiding the Stryker off of a vessel. (Id. at 676). A representative of the longshoreman’s
estate sued General Dynamics, the manufacturer and ondemand maintenanceservice provider for
the Armyowned Stryker. (Id. at 679). The court reasoned that because there was no common law
preexisting relationship, statutory, regulatory, or contractual basis for General Dynamics having
a duty, the company did not have any obligation to inspect or supervise inspection of the Stryker.
(Id. at 678). The fact that General Dynamics manufactured the Stryker and had historically shared
maintenance obligations with the Army did not support a continuing duty to maintain the Stryker
once it was fully the responsibility of the Army. (Id.). The fact that the Army contracted with
General Dynamics to provide ondemand maintenance for the Stryker fleet did not support a
finding of general duty. (Id.). The court also rejected the estate’s res ipsa loquitur and product
liability arguments for failure to provide sufficient supporting evidence. (Id. at 681). Therefore the
district court granted General Dynamics’ motion for summary judgment and concluded that
General Dynamics did not owe a duty of care to inspect an U.S. Armyowned Stryker armored
vehicle that struck and killed a longshoreman in an unloading accident. (Id. at 682).

James v. General Dynamics

TORT LAW
United States District Court, District of Alaska (2022)

Flora Lipsky


In James v. General Dynamics, 582 F.Supp.3d 673 (D. Alaska 2022), the district court held that,
under Alaska tort law, a manufacturer and ondemand maintenanceservice provider did not owe
a duty of care to inspect an U.S. Armyowned Stryker armored vehicle that struck and killed a
longshoreman in an unloading accident. (Id. at 679). In an incident at the Port of Anchorage, a
longshoreman died when an Armyowned Stryker ran him overallegedly due to brake failure
as he was guiding the Stryker off of a vessel. (Id. at 676). A representative of the longshoreman’s
estate sued General Dynamics, the manufacturer and ondemand maintenanceservice provider for
the Armyowned Stryker. (Id. at 679). The court reasoned that because there was no common law
preexisting relationship, statutory, regulatory, or contractual basis for General Dynamics having
a duty, the company did not have any obligation to inspect or supervise inspection of the Stryker.
(Id. at 678). The fact that General Dynamics manufactured the Stryker and had historically shared
maintenance obligations with the Army did not support a continuing duty to maintain the Stryker
once it was fully the responsibility of the Army. (Id.). The fact that the Army contracted with
General Dynamics to provide ondemand maintenance for the Stryker fleet did not support a
finding of general duty. (Id.). The court also rejected the estate’s res ipsa loquitur and product
liability arguments for failure to provide sufficient supporting evidence. (Id. at 681). Therefore the
district court granted General Dynamics’ motion for summary judgment and concluded that
General Dynamics did not owe a duty of care to inspect an U.S. Armyowned Stryker armored
vehicle that struck and killed a longshoreman in an unloading accident. (Id. at 682).