Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; March 21, 1966; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The appellants, Oklahoma Tire Supply Company and its employee Doyle Watts, are appealing a Circuit Court order that granted a new trial to appellees A.J. Bass and Horace Taylor, who claimed damages from a traffic accident attributed to Watts' negligence. During the incident, Bass and Taylor were traveling north on Interstate 30 when Watts, driving a truck, veered into Taylor's lane, prompting Taylor to swerve into Bass' lane, resulting in a collision between Bass' and Taylor's vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged negligence on the part of Watts for causing the crash, while the defendants denied any wrongdoing.
At trial, the court provided an instruction regarding unavoidable accidents, stating that the burden was on the plaintiffs to prove the accident was not unavoidable. The jury ruled in favor of the defendants, but the trial court later set aside this verdict, citing error in the jury instruction regarding unavoidable accidents. The court noted that negligence was evident among the parties involved, as the accident could not have occurred without someone being negligent.
The appellants argue that the trial court properly issued the unavoidable accident instruction and that the plaintiffs were not harmed by it. However, the court upheld the decision to grant a new trial, referencing prior cases that established the rarity of circumstances under which an unavoidable accident instruction should be applied. It concluded that the accident in question was not inevitable and was caused by the negligence of at least one party involved, reinforcing the inappropriateness of the instruction given in this case.
The court found that the evidence did not support a jury submission on the theory of unavoidable accident, reaffirming prior cases. It ruled that the appellants improperly requested and the Trial Court erroneously provided an instruction on unavoidable casualty. Although the appellants claimed the error was harmless due to Watts' testimony, which indicated he was not on the Interstate Highway during the accident, there is uncertainty about whether the jury's decision was influenced by this testimony. The verdict was general, reached by nine jurors, who may have used the "unavoidable accident" instruction to facilitate agreement. The burden was on the appellants to prove the error was harmless, which they failed to do. The plaintiffs raised specific objections to the instruction, arguing it was incomplete, incorrectly stated the law regarding the burden of proof, and was not supported by the evidence. The court noted that the instruction was binding and highlighted that the new trial was granted after the Trial Court became aware of a relevant opinion issued shortly before the trial concluded. The order for a new trial was thus affirmed.
