Ferrell v. Baxter
Alaska Supreme Court
484 P.2d 250 (1971)
- Written by Nicholas Decoster, JD
Facts
In February 1966, an automobile driven by Joan Ferrell (defendant) collided with a Mack truck driven by Melvin Graves (defendant) during snowy conditions on a road that was 12 miles south of Fairbanks, Alaska. Opal Baxter (plaintiff) was a passenger in Ferrell’s car and was injured in the collision. Baxter sued both Ferrell and Graves for damages. At trial, Ferrell and Graves both offered evidence that the negligence of the other driver led to the collision. Ferrell claimed that Graves was over the centerline and that Ferrell was driving at a reasonable speed, while Graves claimed that Graves was within his own lane at the time of the accident and that Ferrell was driving too fast in the center of the road. Both Ferrell and Graves offered expert-witness testimony. The trial court issued an instruction to the jury that directed the jury to find Ferrell and Graves negligent if (1) they violated one of several specific Alaskan traffic regulations and (2) the violation of the regulation caused Baxter’s injuries. The traffic regulations required drivers to stay within their own lanes, absent special circumstances, and to refrain from driving at unreasonable speeds based on the conditions at the time. The jury found Ferrell to be negligent and awarded Baxter $25,000 in damages. Ferrell appealed, arguing that the jury instruction was invalid.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Connor, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Rabinowitz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
