Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellees sustained injuries in a highway accident caused by a disabled van operated by an employee of Wheaton Van Lines, Inc. The van blocked traffic due to operational issues, and the employee failed to deploy safety flares as mandated by statute. When the appellees stopped to avoid the van, they were struck by another vehicle. The appellees filed a negligence lawsuit against Wheaton Van Lines, the van's operator, and the driver of the striking vehicle, who did not appear in court. During the trial, Wheaton Van Lines and its employee sought a directed verdict, which was denied. The jury found Wheaton Van Lines and its employee liable, awarding damages separately from those against the absent driver. Post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for reduction of the awards were denied. On appeal, the court upheld the judgments, affirming that a judgment against one tort-feasor does not absolve others and that damage apportionment among tort-feasors is valid. The court emphasized the timeliness of objections to jury instructions and verdict forms, ultimately affirming the trial court's decisions on both appeal and cross-appeal.
Legal Issues Addressed
Joint Tort-Feasors and Apportionment of Damagessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed the issue of apportioning damages among joint tort-feasors and affirmed that a judgment against one does not release others from liability.
Reasoning: A judgment against one joint tort-feasor does not release other joint tort-feasors from liability; (2) a release to one joint tort-feasor does not discharge others unless explicitly stated.
Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdictsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the appellants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, maintaining the jury's separate verdicts against multiple defendants.
Reasoning: Lastly, the court rejected the appellants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asserting that the $7,500 verdict against Mayfield did not necessitate a corresponding reduction in the appellants' verdicts.
Jury Instructions and Verdict Formssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the jury instructions provided, rejecting claims that they were erroneous, and emphasized the importance of timely objections to verdict forms.
Reasoning: The court found no error in providing appellees' Requested Instructions Nos. 6 and 7, which were based on the aforementioned statutes, as the issue of evidence sufficiency was previously addressed.
Negligence and Proximate Causesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case involved determining whether the failure of an employee to deploy warning flares constituted negligence and a proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries.
Reasoning: Gier, a Wheaton Van Lines employee, caused a van to block traffic due to operational difficulties and failed to use available safety equipment, such as flares, which is mandated by Ark.Stat. Ann. 75-722.