Normally I just lurk, but I'll break radio silence for this one because it's close to my heart.

First, the government is immune to most lawsuits for money. There are exceptions that vary from one jurisdiction to the next, and I don't feel like doing the research on whether Alaska has waived immunity for natural accumulations of ice or snow. But I would be shocked if there is a waiver. It is Alaska, after all, not Disneyland; and people who live there have to deal with those conditions.

Second, in general, a driver is liable for striking a stationary object (unless the car is acted on by an sudden and unforeseeable outside force, like wind or another car striking it). Period. He puts the car into motion, so he's the one who is in the best position to prevent such a collision. It makes complete sense to make him liable for such a collision.

Now, you argue, in essence, that a person should be able to rely on the parking lot surface for traction. That's a fair point. But this is a public policy thing. It's Alaska! Icy surfaces are the norm in the winter. It's nearly impossible to find an exposed surface that isn't covered with ice or snow.

I can't imagine how much it would cost the university (and therefore, the state) to eliminate ice from its parking lots. I realize that climate conditions have softened over the past 20-ish years, but the interior still hovers around -20° F for most of the winter. Anchorage isn't a whole lot warmer. You know how hard it is to melt ice at 20 below? Drop by the chemistry or civil engineering department and ask one of the profs. The cost to eliminate ice from the parking lots would probably be huuuuuuuge. You want that cost passed on to you through tuition? I bet you would scream bloody murder. But someone would have to pay for it.

"But," you say, "the university could have spread gravel there, like they did in other lots." That too is a fair point. But where does that argument end? No matter what mitigation measures a landowner takes, someone can always argue they could have (i.e., should have) done more. If gravel had been there but had not prevented your slide, would you argue that the university could have, should have, offered covered parking? That would be a legitimate argument. But some would call it absurdly costly.

So, rather than engage in a race to complete safety, the law typically requires only that reasonable measures be taken by the parties involved - and, in your case, it could fairly be argued that your speed, or path, or your choice to park in that unremediated lot, or to leave before traction measures were deployed by the university, or even your choice to drive without studded tires, were all unreasonable choices to make under the circumstances. Because the law generally places the burden of preventing loss (or at least sharing it) on the person who is in the best position to do so - which, in most cases, is the person who chooses to engage the hazard.

Disclosure: I attended UAF, fishtailed in my share of parking lots and roads, and crashed at least once (requiring me to dig out of a snowbank in -25°F). Oh, and I enjoyed more than one pickup game of parking lot hockey, since you mentioned it being an ice rink. There's a reason that a bunch of crazies strip down for a picture in front of the -40° sign - they're showing their mettle. The winter conditions there are what they are, and you have to just figure out how to deal with them, or go elsewhere.

So my advice to you is: abandon any idea of shifting liability to the university. Embrace your environment. Wear it as a badge of honor. Have fun with it. Get your picture in your skivvies by the -40° sign. Carry a stick and puck in your trunk and play parking lot hockey whenever you can.

And when you slide into a stationary object, say "well, that sucks, but that's life in the north!" And carry on.