## Facts

- Joyce Getchell and Barbara Lodge drove in opposite directions on the Kenai Spur Highway during darkness and icy conditions.
- Lodge drove about 45 mph (below the speed limit) and was aware that moose could be on the roadway.
- A moose suddenly entered Lodge’s lane; Lodge braked hard, her car skidded and rotated, crossed the center line, and entered Getchell’s lane.
- Getchell collided with Lodge’s skidding vehicle and suffered injuries, including an ankle injury requiring surgery.
- Getchell sued Lodge for negligence, arguing that crossing the center line violated Alaska traffic regulations and constituted negligence per se.
- Lodge argued the moose created a sudden emergency, making any statutory violation excused because she reacted reasonably under the circumstances.
- An expert testified Lodge had very limited time to react and that an average driver could not have avoided violating the traffic rules under the conditions.
- After a three-day trial, the jury found Lodge not negligent; the trial court denied Getchell’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial.
- The trial court admitted portions of the investigating state trooper’s videotaped deposition that included opinions about accident causation and fault.

## Issues

1. Whether Lodge’s center-line crossing established negligence as a matter of law, or whether the statutory violation could be excused based on a sudden emergency not caused by Lodge.
2. Whether the superior court erred in denying Getchell’s motions for JNOV and for a new trial given the evidence of statutory violations and alleged unreasonable driving.
3. Whether admitting the investigating trooper’s opinion testimony violated Alaska Evidence Rules 701 and 702, or should have been excluded under Rule 403.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Lodge.
- The court held sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of no negligence because jurors could reasonably conclude the moose created a qualifying emergency and Lodge’s response was reasonable, excusing any statutory violation.
- The court held the superior court properly denied JNOV and a new trial because reasonable jurors could differ and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
- The court held admission of the trooper’s testimony was not an abuse of discretion under Evidence Rules 701, 702, and 403.

## Legal Principles

- In Alaska, violation of a traffic regulation is negligence per se, but the violation may be excused.
- A statutory violation is generally excused when caused by an emergency not created by the actor’s own conduct and the actor’s response is consistent with reasonable care under the circumstances.
- JNOV is improper if, viewing the evidence favorably to the nonmoving party, reasonable jurors could reach different conclusions; a new-trial ruling is reviewed deferentially and requires the verdict to be against the weight of the evidence.
- Lay opinion testimony must be rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful (Rule 701); expert opinion requires suitable qualifications and helpfulness (Rule 702).
- Relevant evidence may be excluded only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or similar dangers (Rule 403).

## Conclusion

The court upheld a defense verdict where a driver’s technical traffic-law violation occurred during an uncontrollable skid caused by a suddenly appearing moose, because jurors could find the emergency excused the violation and the driver acted reasonably; it also upheld admission of experienced trooper opinion testimony as within the trial court’s discretion.


Getchell v. Lodge, 65 P.3d 50 (Alaska 2003)