Legal Opinion · Dissent

Adams v. State

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1976No. 2326Published

1DissentConnor, Justice

I must dissent.

The ultimate problem in this appeal is whether the state can be held liable for the failure of its agents to enforce the fire *245safety statutes and regulations. Appellants argue that having voluntarily assumed the task of inspecting for hazards, and by having discovered serious hazards, the agency came under a duty to carry out an abatement of those hazards with reasonable care. It is urged that numerous practical courses of action were available to the state’s agents, but that they negligently failed to pursue any of them.1 Appellants seek to ground liability on the principle…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Johnson v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Schuster v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1958
  3. Motyka v. City of AmsterdamNew York Court of Appeals · 1965
  4. State v. AbbottAlaska Supreme Court · 1972
  5. State v. PhillipsAlaska Supreme Court · 1970

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API