Crawford v. United States of America

Filing 30

Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

HAZEL CRAWFORD,
Case No. 4:03-cv-0040-RRB

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

Before

the

Court

is

Summary Judgment at Docket 22.
at Docket 25.

Defendant’s

Motion

for

Partial

The motion is opposed by Plaintiff

The Court has studied the pleadings and finds merit

in Defendant’s arguments.

The summary set forth by Defendant in

its Reply at Docket 28 thoroughly and accurately sets forth the
facts and relevant law.
The BX and its parking lots and sidewalks were
designed and built by independent contractors.
Since its substantial completion in 1987, the
government has not altered the building or
structure and thus, there was no alteration
which falls within the UFAS. The only change
the
government
made
was
to
promote
accessibility. The government moved the spots
designed for handicap parking because the
designated spots were on a slope. This is not
an alteration within the definition in the
UFAS or the ADA, and even if it were, only the
alteration has to be code and Ms. Crawford

ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1
4:03-CV-0040-RRB

made no allegation that changing the location
for the handicap parking spots violated any
code. Lastly, Ms. Crawford is not handicapped
and has no standing to bring a suit based on
the violation of a code designed for
handicapped people.
Ms. Crawford does not have a cause of action
because the statute of repose took affect in
1997 and Ms. Crawford did not fall until 2000.
Thus, the law effectively eliminated any cause
of action based on a code violation.
Ms. Crawford presented no evidence of “an
intentional or reckless disregard of specific
project design plans and specifications or
building codes.”
See AS 09.10.055(a)(1).
Ms. Crawford did not cite to a building code
that applied to curbs in a commercial parking
lot in Fairbanks. As there was no disregard
of the plans or violation of any applicable
code, let alone an intentional or reckless
disregard of such, the exception to the bar
does not apply. As to the allegation that the
landing of the ramp required edge protection,
Ms. Crawford did not specify where the plans
required such edging, and the as-built of the
area does not note any need, but even if such
was required, there is no evidence of a
conscious disregard of the code. Ms. Crawford
simply presented no evidence of a conscious
disregard of codes and therefore the statute
of repose applies to eliminate any cause of
action based on a code violation.
For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment is hereby GRANTED.

The United States is not liable for

any injuries that resulted from negligent design or construction of
the curb and walkway outside the Eielson BX.
ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2006.
/s/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2
4:03-CV-0040-RRB