Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Gillispie v. Beta Const. Co.

842 P.2d 1272 (Alaska 1992)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Gillispie v. Beta Const. Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Sowinski v. Walker

    198 P.3d 1134 (Alaska 2008)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that adoption of pure several liability supercedes Loeb and allows licensee to assert comparative fault of minor in dram shop action between minor and licensee

    Thus, the Alaska statutes do not allow the nondependent sibling of a wrongful death victim to assert a wrongful death claim for nonpecuniary harm. AS 09.55.580(a); Gillispie v. Beta Constr. Co., 842 P.2d 1272, 1273 (Alaska 1992) ("When the decedent is not survived by dependents, the statute limits recovery to pecuniary loss,").Cf.

  2. Wold v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Co.

    52 P.3d 155 (Alaska 2002)   Cited 7 times
    Holding physical-contact requirement did not violate public policy where uninsured motorist statute expressly required direct physical contact, noting "statutes themselves reflect the state's public policy"

    See generally Mattingly v. Sheldon Jackson Coll., 743 P.2d 356, 365 (Alaska 1987).See AS 09.15.010; Gillispie v. Beta Constr. Co., 842 P.2d 1272, 1273 (Alaska 1992) (AS 09.15.010 creates parental cause of action for loss of child separate from wrongful death action brought by child's estate). In negotiating the Wolds' claims, then, Allstate recognized and accepted that the Wolds were asserting each of their claims against both Smith's liability and UM/UIM policies: Allstate thus assumed that the estate could potentially recover $100,000 plus add-ons (attorney's fees and interest) on its wrongful death claim under each of Smith's policies and that Cynthia could potentially recover an additional $100,000 plus add-ons on her bystander NIED claim under each of those policies.

  3. Mendillo v. Board of Education

    246 Conn. 456 (Conn. 1998)   Cited 289 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing general rule that minor children may bring action only by way of parent or next friend

    Those states that have adopted a cause of action for parents for the loss of a childs consortium include die following in reverse chronological order. United States v. Dempsey, 635 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1994); Jameson v. Hawthorne, 635 A.2d 1167 (R.I. 1994); Enochs v. Brown, 872 S.W.2d 312 (Tex.App. 1994); Pino v. Gather, 633 So.2d 638 (La App. 1993); Gallimore v. Childrens Hospital Medical Center, supra, 67 Ohio St.3d 244; Gillispie v. Beta Construction Co., 842 P.2d 1272 (Alaska 1992); Masaki v. General Motors, 71 Haw. 1, 780 P.2d 566 (1989); Davis v. Elizabeth General Medical Center, 228 N.J. Super. 17, 548 A.2d 528 (1988); Jacobs v. Anderson Building Co., 430 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 1988); Frank, M. C., P.C. v. Superior Court, 150 Ariz. 228, 722 P.2d 955 (1986); Shockley v. Prier, 66 Wis.2d 394, 225 N.W.2d 495 (1975); Hayward v. Yost, 72 Idaho 415, 242 P.2d 971 (1952); see also Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 231, § 85X (Law. Co-op. Sup. 1994); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.24.010 (West 1988). The courts in Illinois are divided: compare Barkei v. Delnor Hospital, 176 Ill. App.3d 681, 531 N.E.2d 413 (1988) (no cause of action) with Dymek v. Nyquist, 128 Ill. App.3d 859, 469 N.E.2d 659 (1984) (recognizing cause of action).

  4. Thurmon v. Sellers

    62 S.W.3d 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that a parent may bring a loss of consortium claim based on the wrongful death of a child

    Recovery is permitted pursuant to statutory language (i.e. "general loss" or "pecuniary loss") in the following states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. See Gillispie v. Beta Constr. Co., 842 P.2d 1272 (Alaska 1992); Frank v. Superior Court, 150 Ariz. 228, 722 P.2d 955 (1986); Perry v. Medina, 192 Cal.App.3d 603, 237 Cal.Rptr. 532 (5th Dist. 1987); Checketts v. Bowman, 70 Idaho 463, 220 P.2d 682 (1950); Bullard v. Barnes, 102 Ill.2d 505, 82 Ill.Dec. 448, 468 N.E.2d 1228 (1984); Vincent v. Morgan's L. T.R. S.S. Co., 140 La. 1027, 74 So. 541 (1917); Fussner v. Andert, 261 Minn. 347, 113 N.W.2d 355 (1961); Louisville N.R. Co. v. Whisenant, 214 Miss. 421, 58 So.2d 908 (1952); Davis v. Smith, 152 Mont. 170, 448 P.2d 133 (1968); Selders v. Armentrout, 190 Neb. 275, 207 N.W.2d 686 (1973); Green v. Bittner, 85 N.J. 1, 424 A.2d 210 (1980); Saguid v. Kingston Hosp., 213 A.D.2d 770, 623 N.Y.S.2d 341 (N.Y.App. Div. 1995), appeal dismissed, 87 N.Y.2d 861, 639 N.Y.S.2d 312, 662 N.E.2d 793, leave to appeal dismissed by 88 N.Y.2d 868, 644 N.Y.S.2d 686, 667 N.E.2d 337 (1996); Hopkins v. McBane, 427 N.W.2d 85 (N.D. 1988); Gomillion v. Forsythe, 218 S.C. 211, 62 S.E.2d 297 (1950); Anderson v. Lale, 88 S.D. 111,

  5. Thurmon v. Sellers

    No. W2000-00422-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2001)

    Recovery is permitted pursuant to statutory language (i.e. "general loss" or "pecuniary loss") in the following states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. See Gillispie v. Beta Constr. Co., 842 P.2d 1272 (Alaska 1992); Frank v. Superior Court, 722 P.2d 955 (Ariz. 1986); Perry v. Medina, 237 Cal.Rptr. 532 (5th Dist. 1987); Checketts v. Bowman, 220 P.2d 682 (Idaho 1950); Bullard v. Barnes, 468 N.E.2d 1228 (Ill. 1984); Vincent v. Morgan's L. T.R. S.S. Co., 74 So. 541 (La. 1917); Fussner v. Andert, 113 N.W.2d 355 (Minn.