TORT LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Teddy Brodsky
In Kisling v. Grosz, 565 P.3d 226 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that when a jury awards noneconomic damages, the court must first allocate fault before deciding whether a damages cap applies. (Id. at 227). After Grosz was traumatically injured while helping his friend Kisling hang a crucifix on the wall in Kisling’s home, he sued Kisling for negligence. (Id.). The jury awarded $1.2 million worth of non-economic damages but found that Kisling was only 25% at fault while Grosz was 75% responsible for his own injuries. (Id. at 228). Alaska law caps noneconomic damages in personal injury cases at $400,000. (Id.). The parties disagreed as to how to apply the statutory damages cap to Grosz’s recovery. (Id.). Kisling argued that the court should apply the cap to reduce the award to $400,000 before applying the apportionment-of-fault percentages, resulting in a $100,000 recovery for Grosz. (Id.). Grosz, on the other hand, argued that the court should first apply the apportionment percentages before deciding whether a cap should apply, resulting in a $300,000 recovery (25% of $1.2 million). (Id. at 228–29). The superior court agreed with Grosz’s sequencing and the Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed. (Id. at 229). The Court reasoned that the cap applies only to the amount for which the defendant is responsible. (Id.). While the Court acknowledged that the legislature intended to limit a defendant’s exposure and plaintiff’s recovery in implementing its damages cap, it noted that the statutory text and legislative history do not require reductions below the cap. (Id. at 231). The statutory cap is a limitation on a defendant’s liability, not on the entire damages award. (Id.). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that courts must first apply principles of comparative fault to determine what the claimant is owed and then decide whether that amount is subject to a statutory damages cap. (Id. at 235).
