Jordan v. Adams

Citations: 533 S.W.2d 210; 259 Ark. 407; 1976 Ark. LEXIS 2082Docket: 75-266

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; March 1, 1976; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On May 29, 1973, Sara Adams and J. W. Adams were guests at the Imperial Diners Club in Blytheville, Arkansas, when an incident involving Glenn Jordan and Marge Womack led to Sara Adams being injured. Jordan and Womack, who had been dating for about a year and a half, were seated at a nearby table where they engaged in loud and vulgar conversation. After Womack left the table to speak with a man at the bar, Jordan followed and confronted the man using profanity. Subsequently, Jordan threw Womack's purse toward the bar, causing it to land on a table, knock over a glass candle holder, and fall to the floor. A .25 caliber pistol inside the purse discharged, injuring Sara Adams below her calf.

The Adamses filed a lawsuit for damages, resulting in a jury awarding $20,000 to Sara Adams and $600 to J. W. Adams. The appellants contended that the court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict, arguing there was no negligence. However, the court found substantial evidence of negligence, which warranted a jury’s consideration. Testimony indicated that Jordan's aggressive behavior led to the incident, and Sara Adams experienced severe pain and medical complications after the shooting, including a five-day hospital stay and long-term effects on her daily activities. The court ruled against the appellants, affirming the jury's verdict based on the evidence presented.

Mrs. Adams has resumed exercise but continues to experience calf cramps and pain, and has felt the bullet lodged in her leg, confirmed by her husband. Mrs. Tom Miller noted that at the Ramada Inn, the appellants engaged in loud, vulgar conversation that made her uncomfortable. Olson corroborated the incident of a purse being thrown, and observed Jordan slurring his words and acting intoxicated. Dr. Hunter C. Sims treated Mrs. Adams for a gunshot wound in her left calf, which X-rays confirmed contained a .25 caliber bullet. He explained that such injuries damage various tissues and noted her ongoing symptoms of discomfort, swelling, and redness diagnosed as superficial thrombophlebitis. Although the bullet was not removed due to its stability, Dr. Sims indicated that persistent pain might necessitate its removal. On appeal, the court considers evidence favoring the appellees. Jordan admitted to tossing the purse without knowing Mrs. Womack was facing away and claimed he was not aware of the pistol in the purse, despite having previously gone target shooting with her. Mrs. Womack acknowledged ownership of the purse and pistol, carrying it without a permit, and admitted to not checking the gun before leaving. She left the scene out of fear. The appellants argue Womack could not foresee the purse being thrown nor the potential for injury from it. However, it is established that if a party could have anticipated their actions might result in injury, they can be held liable, regardless of whether the specific injury was foreseeable.

In Johnson, the foreseeability rule from Helen Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. is applied to establish liability for negligence, emphasizing that a negligent act must be the proximate cause of the injury and that the injury must be one that a person of ordinary foresight could anticipate. The court argues that requiring exact foresight is impractical, as no one possesses such ability. In this case, evidence suggests that Jordan was aware of Womack carrying a pistol in her purse, as she always did when going out at night. Even if Jordan was unaware, his act of throwing the purse into a dining area was deemed culpably negligent, as it could foreseeably injure someone, which it did when it caused a glass candle holder to crash, injuring Mrs. Adams. Unlike Palsgraf, Mrs. Adams was a foreseeable plaintiff. Womack's act of bringing a loaded pistol into a public establishment also constituted negligence, raising a fact question for the jury regarding her responsibility. The court references Cobb v. Indian Springs, Inc., highlighting that the security guard's actions could also be seen as negligent, contributing to the harm through concurrent negligence. Ultimately, the court finds that the jury's verdict, even if large, should not be overturned unless it shocks the conscience or shows juror bias.

In Clark County Lumber Company v. Collins and McChristian v. Hooten, the court emphasized that excessive verdicts must be evaluated based on the specific facts of each case. Before reducing a verdict, the court must consider the evidence in favor of the verdict at its highest probative force and ascertain if there is substantial evidence supporting it. In this case, the court affirmed the verdicts for both appellees, indicating they were not excessive. Chief Justice Harris and Justices George Rose Smith and Fogleman expressed dissenting opinions regarding liability, particularly concerning Jordan. Justice Smith argued that Jordan could not foresee the risk posed by Mrs. Womack's purse containing a pistol and criticized the majority for imposing liability based on a broad interpretation of foreseeability. He contended that liability should only extend to foreseeable risks and should not cover unforeseeable intervening causes, such as the discharge of the pistol. Justice Fogleman agreed with the affirmation regarding Womack, noting her failure to secure the dangerous weapon and the implications of her actions given the circumstances. However, he aligned with Smith's dissent regarding Jordan’s liability, indicating a division on the application of foreseeability in determining responsibility.