Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Pigage v. Chism
Citations: 237 Ark. 873; 377 S.W.2d 32; 1964 Ark. LEXIS 381Docket: 5-3195
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; March 30, 1964; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
E. J. Pigage Jr., an 11-year-old boy referred to as 'Tad,' was struck by a car driven by Mrs. Chism while playing in January 1962. Tad, through his father as next friend, sued Mrs. Chism for damages, alongside his parents who sought damages for their expenses related to his injury. During the trial, the jury was instructed that if they found Tad negligent, such negligence would also be attributed to his parents in the context of damages. The jury awarded $2,500 to Tad's father and $500 to his mother but denied any recovery to Tad himself. Tad's attorneys moved for a mistrial, citing inconsistencies in the verdicts, as the parents received awards while their son did not. Mrs. Chism's attorneys accepted the verdicts without objection. The court upheld the verdicts and rendered judgment accordingly. Neither parent appealed, accepting their respective awards. Tad is the sole appellant, arguing that the court erred in not granting a mistrial due to the inconsistency of the verdicts. However, the court concluded that Tad could not benefit from the inconsistency, as the definitive verdict against him as the principal party controlled the outcome. A parent may recover damages from a third party for a child's injury only if the child has a valid cause of action against that party. If the child's injury does not support a claim, the parent cannot recover. This principle was illustrated in Shiels v. Audette, where the court emphasized that compensation for a parent's expenses must stem from a personal injury for which the child could recover. If the child lacks a right to compensation, the parent similarly lacks recovery rights. This concept was supported by various cases, including Thibeault v. Poole and Callies v. Reliance Laundry Co. The relationship between a parent and child in recovery resembles that of an agent and principal; if the agent (the child) does not have a valid claim, the principal (the parent) cannot assert one either. In the current case, if there was no negligence by the appellee Coal Company's employees, resulting in no liability for the company, then the parent cannot recover, regardless of any jury verdict against the appellant, Tad Pigage Jr. The inconsistency between verdicts does not grant the appellant additional rights, leading to the affirmation of the lower court's decision. References to related cases were also noted.