Minors Suing Owner of Myrtle Irene for More Than $100,000

Two high school students, through adult representatives, are suing Arctic Sea Mining LLC for injuries they suffered during a car accident involving a steel cable stretched across a road in Nome.

Myron Angstman, an attorney representing one of the plaintiffs, says pictures of the vehicle during the incident from last year are graphic.

“The cable that they hit came over the front of their car and basically leveled the cab, not completely but it mangled the cab, and they were in the cab of course…So it was not a pretty sight.”

According to the complaint, recently filed with the Alaska Superior Court, on October 26th of 2018 two minors were driving down the Port Road in Nome when their vehicle struck steel cables that were attached to a large marine vessel. One end of the cable was hooked up to a loader and the other was attached to the gold dredge, Mrytle Irene.

The steel cable stretched across the Port Road in Nome, pulling the Myrtle Irene on one end and a loader on the other. Photo from Nome Police Department, used with permission.

The plaintiffs claim Arctic Sea Mining, Ken Kerr’s company which owns the Myrtle Irene, failed to warn them of the cables’ presence in the middle of the Port Road. As such, the two high schoolers are suing for an amount in excess of $100,000. Kerr was unable to be reached for comment before the airing of this story.

Angstman says more than a year later, the plaintiffs are still recovering from the injuries they sustained during the accident.

“It was a significant accident, and both of them suffered blows to the head of varying degrees. And the progress of the recovery is uncertain at this time.”

According to Angstman, the court has not yet sent a response to their complaint, and he estimates it could be a year before the case goes to trial, if it is not settled before then.

Image at top: A vehicle after it struck the steel cable stretched across the Port Road during a car accident in October, 2018. Photo from Nome Police Department, used with permission.


  1. Jason Doxey on December 11, 2019 at 7:22 am

    It’s not the court’s role to send a response to the plaintiffs’ complaint. I am not sure why there is reference to that in this article.

    • Davis Hovey on December 11, 2019 at 7:44 am

      Hello Jason,

      Thank you for your comment. When the article says “the court has not yet sent a response to their complaint” it references the fact that the court has not notified Myron Angstman and the plaintiffs’ of their case being filed and a court date has not been set yet. Once Angstman receives a response from the court, then they will know when the lawsuit can move forward.
      Hopefully that clarifies things!

      Best regards,

      KNOM Staff

  2. Stacy on December 20, 2019 at 2:35 pm

    You’re not keeping the identities of the minors confidential/private, nothing was redacted in the complaint linked. Was that the intention, to have that information available for all to see?

    • Davis Hovey on December 20, 2019 at 3:27 pm

      Hello Stacy,

      Thank you for your comment. To answer your question, yes that was intentional to include the link to the official complaint. We did not name the youth in the story, however since this lawsuit will be filed in court publicly and the information about the minors will be made public anyways, we decided to make the complaint indirectly available for the public. They could obtain the same information online from courtview or at the courthouse if they want.
      Thanks again for your comment and question,

      KNOM Staff