Main Menu

Downing v. Shoreside Petroleum, Inc.

TORT LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Katharine Roberts

In Downing v. Shoreside Petroleum, Inc., 563 P.3d 34 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that the lower court was not required to make a damages award based on the post-accident earning capacity the plaintiff suggested. (Id. at 39–40). Downing sued Shoreside Petroleum, Inc. (Shoreside) after she was injured by a truck driven by an employee of Shoreside in 2017. (Id. at 36). At trial, Downing’s expert witnesses testified about the traumatic brain injury she suffered from the accident, and the superior court found that it was more likely than not that Downing suffered a loss of earning capacity as a result. (Id.). However, the court dismissed Downing’s claim for damages for lost earning capacity, reasoning that she failed to prove the amount of her loss to a reasonable degree. (Id. at 37). When Downing appealed, the Supreme Court of Alaska remanded to the superior court, holding that once the court had found that Downing suffered loss of future earning capacity, it was obliged to award damages based on its best estimate of that loss. (Id.). On remand, the court did not find Downing’s expert witness’s estimate of loss of future earnings persuasive and instead awarded based on Shoreside’s expert witness’s estimate. (Id. at 37–39). Downing appealed again, arguing that the superior court should have found that her post-accident earning capacity was somewhere within the range of figures her witnesses proposed. (Id. at 39). The Supreme Court of Alaska held that because the superior court did not find Downing’s witnesses credible, the court was not required to rely on that witness’s estimates for damages. (Id. at 40). The Court also reasoned that the superior court complied with Alaska Civil Rule 52 by clearly calculating that she had 6.3 years of work life expectancy and basing their damages calculation on that. (Id. at 41–42). Because these calculations used the average retirement age for women, the Supreme Court of Alaska therefore held that the superior court did not clearly err by using their calculations in awarding Downing damages, instead of using Downing’s expert witness’s calculations.

Downing v. Shoreside Petroleum, Inc.

TORT LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Katharine Roberts

In Downing v. Shoreside Petroleum, Inc., 563 P.3d 34 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that the lower court was not required to make a damages award based on the post-accident earning capacity the plaintiff suggested. (Id. at 39–40). Downing sued Shoreside Petroleum, Inc. (Shoreside) after she was injured by a truck driven by an employee of Shoreside in 2017. (Id. at 36). At trial, Downing’s expert witnesses testified about the traumatic brain injury she suffered from the accident, and the superior court found that it was more likely than not that Downing suffered a loss of earning capacity as a result. (Id.). However, the court dismissed Downing’s claim for damages for lost earning capacity, reasoning that she failed to prove the amount of her loss to a reasonable degree. (Id. at 37). When Downing appealed, the Supreme Court of Alaska remanded to the superior court, holding that once the court had found that Downing suffered loss of future earning capacity, it was obliged to award damages based on its best estimate of that loss. (Id.). On remand, the court did not find Downing’s expert witness’s estimate of loss of future earnings persuasive and instead awarded based on Shoreside’s expert witness’s estimate. (Id. at 37–39). Downing appealed again, arguing that the superior court should have found that her post-accident earning capacity was somewhere within the range of figures her witnesses proposed. (Id. at 39). The Supreme Court of Alaska held that because the superior court did not find Downing’s witnesses credible, the court was not required to rely on that witness’s estimates for damages. (Id. at 40). The Court also reasoned that the superior court complied with Alaska Civil Rule 52 by clearly calculating that she had 6.3 years of work life expectancy and basing their damages calculation on that. (Id. at 41–42). Because these calculations used the average retirement age for women, the Supreme Court of Alaska therefore held that the superior court did not clearly err by using their calculations in awarding Downing damages, instead of using Downing’s expert witness’s calculations.