TORT LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Ben Helzner
In Griffith v. Hemphill, 556 P.3d 932 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that (1) “negligent infliction of emotional distress” claims cannot be based on litigation conduct and (2) “malicious prosecution” claims require those bringing the claim to have won on all relevant issues in the previous litigation. (Id. at 939–41). In a previous case, landlord Griffith sued his tenants Hemphill and Davis for eviction. (Id. at 936). Hemphill and Davis counterclaimed on various breach of contract claims. (Id.). The court entered judgment in favor of Hemphill and Davis on Griffith’s suit and on one of their counterclaims. (Id.). In the case at hand, Griffith sued Hemphill and Davis over their counterclaims, alleging (1) negligent infliction of emotional distress and (2) malicious prosecution. (Id. at 936, 940). To the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the Supreme Court of Alaska reasoned that, since litigation conduct could not form the basis of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, it also could not form the basis of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at 939). As to the claim for malicious prosecution, the Supreme Court of Alaska articulated two standards based on California precedent. (Id. at 940). The first standard required that the person bringing the claim to have won on every issue in the litigation. (Id.). The second required that the person bringing the claim to have won on every “separable” issue. (Id.). The court declined to decide on which standard to use because Griffith did not meet even the second, lower standard. (Id. at 940–41). The court reasoned that Hemphill and Davis’s counterclaims were not separable from one another because they were all compulsory to Griffith’s claim. (Id. at 941). Since Hemphill and Davis gained a favorable judgment on one of their breach of contract counterclaims, Griffith had not even won on every separable issue. (Id. at 940–41). The Supreme Court of Alaska held that (1) “negligent infliction of emotional distress” claims cannot be based on litigation conduct and (2) “malicious prosecution” claims require those bringing the claim to have won on all relevant issues in the previous litigation. (Id. at 939–41).
