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 on–demand maintenance–service provider did not owe
a duty of care to inspect an U.S. Army–owned 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 Army–owned Stryker ran him over—allegedly 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 on–demand maintenance–service provider for
the Army–owned Stryker. (Id. at 679). The court reasoned that because there was no common law
pre–existing 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 on–demand 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. Army–owned Stryker armored
vehicle that struck and killed a longshoreman in an unloading accident. (Id. at 682).