Opinion ID: 1164260
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Racing Instructions

Text: The trial court instructed the jury that racing, in violation of 13 AAC 02.330, is negligence per se. [10] Plaintiffs claim there is insufficient evidence in the record to support an instruction on racing. A trial court may adopt a statute or regulation as the appropriate standard of care, if there is sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer the statute was violated. Bachner v. Rich, 554 P.2d 430, 441 n. 12 (Alaska 1976). The test for determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a negligence per se instruction is whether the facts and resulting inferences are such that reasonable people, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction could justifiably have different views on the question. Godfrey v. Hemenway, 617 P.2d 3, 7-8 (Alaska 1980). There was sufficient evidence introduced at trial to support an instruction on racing. Officer Layman testified that both Bailey and Wise stated, after the accident, that Bailey accelerated to catch up with Blackburn after Blackburn passed them. Dr. Ha, who interviewed Bailey after the accident testified that Bailey told him he and Blackburn were running the road, trying to pass each other, and their speed was such that they could not stop at the yield sign. The evidence is undisputed that the two vehicles were traveling down the road side-by-side. There is also evidence that both motorcycles disobeyed the yield sign on Dunbar Street. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Lenord, we believe reasonable jurors could have concluded plaintiffs were racing. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury that racing, in violation of 13 AAC 02.330, is negligence per se.