Young v. State

Edward Krivak was driving to his cabin near an Alaskan hot springs. Frank Young (plaintiff) was a passenger in Krivak’s vehicle. The State of Alaska (the state) (defendant) had hired a contractor (defendant) to build a public highway near the hot springs. Young was aware of the construction and had traveled in that area several times while the construction was occurring. A movable barricade marked the beginning of the construction zone, but Krivak intentionally drove past it. Along the road, multiple signs warned that the road was under construction and closed. Krivak was traveling at 35 miles per hour when he saw a bridge approach but did not realize there was no actual bridge there. When Krivak realized the bridge was missing, he swerved and went down an embankment. The crash injured Young. Young sued the state and the contractor for negligence, alleging that they had negligently failed to use a locking barricade to prevent road access and failed to post enough warning signs. The trial court found that Young had known the road was dangerous and had acted negligently when he traveled with Krivak down the road anyway. The court ruled that it did not need to determine whether the state or contractor had acted negligently because even if they had acted negligently, Young’s own contributory negligence barred any recovery for his claims. The court dismissed Young’s claims. Young appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, arguing that only a driver could be contributorily negligent, not a passenger who had no control over the vehicle.