Opinion ID: 1202431
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: breach of duty to protect

Text: Gordon argues that Boyd breached his duty because Boyd simply released Geleszinski fifteen feet up the road. Alaska Pacific contends that Boyd exercised due care because Geleszinski appeared calm when Boyd released him. The trial court ruled that Boyd exercised due care as a matter of law because it was undisputed that Geleszinski appeared calm when Boyd released him. Although Geleszinski was calm when Boyd released him, this occurred within ten to fifteen feet of the site of the first fight. In contrast, after Geleszinski struck Gordon, Boyd walked him through the woods, across an open field, across the railroad tracks and across the highway to a minimall, where Boyd informed Geleszinski and his wife that they were not getting back on the train to Anchorage. Moreover, Geleszinski did not struggle against Gordon's restraint, yet Gordon did not release him until someone appeared to take charge of the situation, because Gordon suspected that Geleszinski was just playing along. Whether particular conduct is negligent or reasonable is a question of fact for the jury, if reasonable minds could draw different inferences from the evidence presented. Swenson Trucking, 604 P.2d at 1118-19; Webb v. City and Borough of Sitka, 561 P.2d 731, 735 (Alaska 1977). We believe that reasonable minds could differ on the question whether Boyd exercised reasonable care in releasing Geleszinski so soon, and so near the scene of the struggle, despite his calm demeanor. We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in concluding that Boyd exercised due care as a matter of law.