Opinion ID: 2499737
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court's Reading Of The Complaint Was Unduly Narrow.

Text: Mickelsen argues that the superior court incorrectly applied the law for testing the sufficiency of his complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Specifically, he argues that the superior court erred because it did not presume the truth of the allegations in his complaint, it ignored some of his factual assertions, it did not make reasonable inferences in his favor, and it focuse[d] on a narrow interpretation of the facts Mickelsen pled in support of Wendy's duty of care. As noted above, a court testing the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) must presume all allegations in the complaint to be true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the complainant. [7] Because complaints must be liberally construed, motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are disfavored and should rarely be granted. [8] To survive, [a] complaint need only allege a set of facts consistent with and appropriate to some enforceable cause of action. Therefore, a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.[ [9] ] Here, citing Schumacher v. City & Borough of Yakutat [10] for the rule that landowners have no duty to protect others from risks created by the conduct of third parties, [11] the superior court concluded that Mickelsen had not stated a valid claim because his complaint only alleges wrongful acts by third parties and conditions created by third parties, not the defendants, and does not allege that the design of the entrance and exits in themselves are dangerous or that defendants failed to properly designate the entrances and exits to the property. We agree with Mickelsen that the superior court's reading of the complaint was unduly narrow. Mickelsen's complaint contains the following allegations: 8. There is one legal entry for customers in vehicles to access Wendy's. That entry is from Reeve Boulevard. 10. There are two legal exits for vehicles from Wendy's. The first and main exit is out the same curb cut as the Reeve Boulevard entry. The second allows vehicles, primarily using the drive-through, to exit onto 5th Avenue. 11. Wendy's customers who are eastbound on 5th Avenue must wait for a left turn arrow or traffic to clear to turn onto Reeve Boulevard to use the Reeve entry. 12. Wendy's customers in the 5th Avenue turning lane can take a short-cut into the property from 5th Avenue by crossing the double yellow line, crossing the two west bound traffic lanes, entering the drive-through exit and then circling around the east side of the building. 13. Wendy's customers use this short-cut to get to the restaurant on a regular basis. 14. Customers using this short-cut into the 5th Avenue exit are readily observable from the inside of the Wendy's Restaurant by managers, employees and customers. 16. On March 27, 2006, Lawrence W. Hayward, attempted to use this short-cut to enter the one-way 5th Avenue exit in order to buy lunch at Wendy's. 19. While crossing the west-bound lanes of 5th Avenue to enter in through the drive-through exit, Hayward's truck was struck by a motorcycle. The driver of the motorcycle, Shawn Martin Mickelsen, died as a result of the injuries he received. .... 23. The use of the 5th Avenue exit as a short-cut entry to the Wendy's Restaurant is a structure or artificial condition that posed an unreasonable risk of harm to west-bound traffic on 5th Avenue. 24. The defendants knew or should have known of this dangerous condition because such use occurs on a daily basis. 25. The defendants knew or should have known of this dangerous condition because it is readily observable from the restaurant by looking out the south facing windows onto 5th Avenue. 26. Defendants['] failure to take action to make this dangerous condition safe was a breach of their duty of care. 27. Defendants['] conduct in creating and allowing this dangerous condition to exist evidenced reckless indifference to the interest of another person warranting the award of punitive damages pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 09.17.020. Reading Mickelsen's complaint liberally, as we must, [12] Mickelsen's complaint alleges that Wendy's created an entry and exit system that had the effect of enticing Wendy's patrons to enter the premises by making an illegal turn across two lanes of traffic, that Wendy's customers in fact regularly used the short-cut, that Wendy's was or should have been aware of such use, and that this dangerous condition led to the fatal accident. In order to establish a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must show a duty of care owed to him by the defendant, a breach of that duty, and that damage was proximately caused by the breach. [13] Mickelsen's allegations are sufficient to state a negligence cause of action. The facts pled by Mickelsen invoke a landowner's duty of care, as we conclude in greater detail in the following section. Mickelsen's complaint adequately alleges that Wendy's breached that duty by creating and allowing the continued existence of a dangerous condition, and that Wendy's breach proximately caused the damages at issue in this case. This is sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief.