TORT LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Drew Loughlin
In Tripp v. City & Borough of Juneau, 563 P.3d 17 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that a public employer has no duty to train employees against excessive alcohol consumption outside of work hours and therefore could not be held liable for an employee who drives drunk outside of work hours. (Id. at 21). The case itself concerned a Juneau Police Department (JPD) officer who rear-ended another vehicle and injured the driver when he had a blood alcohol content of 0.239. (Id. at 22). The officer struggled with both alcohol abuse and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). (Id.). Tripp, who was injured, alleged that JPD was negligent in failing to provide the officer with counseling for his PTSD or training to manage his alcohol abuse. (Id.). The superior court dismissed the case because it did not believe that the JPD had a duty of care, and the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Alaska. (Id. at 24). Tripp claimed that the duty of care could be sourced from: “(1) AS 18.65.130, a provision setting out general policies for the Police Standards Council; (2) CBJ’s Drug-Free Workplace policy; and (3) JPD Rule of Conduct 114.” (Id. at 25). The Supreme Court of Alaska disagreed. (Id.). Instead, the Supreme Court of Alaska concluded that the statute itself was too broad to create a specific duty of care, and the internal policies and rules of conduct did not extend a duty outside of the workplace. (Id. at 25–27). Finally, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that public policy did not mandate creating a duty of care due to the limited foreseeability of the injury and the strained relationship between the proposed duty and the tortious conduct. (Id. at 31–32) As a result, the Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of the case. (Id. at 34).
