Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; March 9, 1970; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Evelyn Dunn sustained injuries after losing control of her vehicle, allegedly due to fuel oil spilled on the highway from a tanker truck owned by CRT, Inc. She received damages for her injuries, while her husband, Lamar Dunn, was awarded compensation for her medical expenses and loss of consortium. CRT appealed, contesting the evidence regarding liability and the validity of a jury instruction. The incident began when CRT's driver, Morris W. Craig, picked up 5,300 gallons of fuel oil at Lion Oil Refinery and encountered a group of picketing drivers from Wheeling Pipeline, who were striking at the time. They blocked Craig's truck to question him about his cargo, suspecting him of transporting fuel oil to bypass the strike. Although Craig was not physically harmed and did not exit the truck, he was questioned for several minutes, during which he did not provide proof of his non-affiliation with Wheeling. Following this encounter, fuel oil began leaking from Craig's truck due to a manually operated control valve that was left open, which Craig discovered only after being alerted at a weight station 43 miles later. Evidence suggested that an unknown individual may have opened the valve at the traffic circle, where the oil first spilled, leading to a significant amount of fuel oil being released primarily in Craig's lane of traffic. The State Highway Department initiated a sand-covering operation to address the spill early the next morning.
Mr. and Mrs. Dunn lived near Hampton, south of Thornton, and Mrs. Dunn was en route to her job in El Dorado when she encountered oil on the highway, causing her to skid and end up in a ditch after passing a transport truck. The legal dispute focuses on whether the jury could reasonably find that Craig, a truck driver shadowed by strikers, had been put on notice to check his vehicle for potential damage after being detained by the strikers. Evidence presented indicated that Craig was followed by a white car and subsequently surrounded by strikers who accused him of aiding a rival company. Craig felt threatened and did not stop to inspect his truck, despite losing a significant amount of oil and later discovering a leak at a weight station. The jury had sufficient grounds to determine that Craig's actions and circumstances warranted a conclusion that he should have checked his rig, highlighting the tension between him and the strikers, as well as the dangerous implications of the situation he faced.
A driver noticed oil leaking from their truck and questioned whether a reasonably alert driver would have detected the loss of 100 gallons of fuel oil per mile and a defect in the fuel line sooner. The jury concluded that tampering by strikers was reasonably foreseeable, supporting their verdict despite the appellant's claim that Mrs. Dunn was solely negligent for the accident. Evidence indicated Mrs. Dunn was aware of the slick oil and its presence on the highway but maintained she did not exceed fifty miles per hour, which she deemed safe. Although she passed a transport truck, this action was not shown to contribute to the accident. Mrs. Dunn's emergency response, including braking upon seeing a slow-moving pickup and a sanding crew, was deemed a question for the jury. The jury's verdict suggested they found her only slightly negligent.
Regarding the assumption of risk defense, evidence showed normal traffic conditions on the highway with no prior accidents reported. The court found error in the giving of Court's Instruction No. 20, which referenced a statute about vehicle construction and loading. The instruction was deemed abstract as it was not relevant to the trial issues, given there was no evidence linking the spillage to construction or loading issues. The court cited previous cases that reversed verdicts due to abstract instructions and ultimately reversed and remanded the case.
