Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Cantlin v. Pavlovich
Citations: 265 Ark. 654; 580 S.W.2d 190; 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1244Docket: 78-340
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; April 30, 1979; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
An automobile collision occurred on December 8, 1975, between Emory Street and the Hot Springs High School parking lot, involving the appellant leaving the parking lot and the appellee pulling off Emory Street. The area where the collision took place was not designated for parking or driving. The appellant filed a Motion in Limine to prevent the introduction of evidence related to settlement negotiations, which the court denied, stating it would address the issue during the trial. The jury awarded the appellee $700 in damages, prompting the appellant to appeal, arguing that the Motion in Limine should have been granted and that the court erred in refusing to give certain jury instructions (AMI 901 and 903). The court acknowledged that the Motion in Limine was appropriate but ruled that its denial did not constitute prejudicial error if settlement negotiation evidence was excluded later. However, when a witness testified about the appellant's attempt to settle, the court overruled an objection from the appellant, which was deemed improper under Uniform Rules of Evidence, Rule No. 408. This rule prohibits the admissibility of evidence regarding compromise negotiations to prove liability. Furthermore, the court allowed the introduction of a repair estimate made out to the appellant, which was also contested. The appellant was not permitted to clarify that her offer to settle was made to protect her driving license rather than admitting fault. The court also discussed the refusal to provide AMI 901 and 903 instructions, noting that both parties requested AMI 901, indicating no error in that regard. The court suggested that common law rules of the road should apply even in parking lots, emphasizing that these rules derive from judicial decisions and societal practices rather than statutory provisions. 'Proper lookout' and 'reasonable care' standards apply to non-street or highway areas, as established in Erwin Mfg. Co. v. Croft, Sientki v. Haffner, and Cavalier v. Peerless Ins. Co. of Keene, N.H. The rules of the road do not pertain to off-street locations when street usage is not involved, as noted in Bean v. Coffee. Testimony reveals that the appellee was on Emory Street before turning onto the paved apron leading to the high school parking lot. Arkansas Statute Ann. 75-618 is relevant, and further statutes may be applicable within AMI 903 based on developed facts. A disagreement exists regarding whether the appellee turned at an intersection, but he did turn off Emory Street before the collision. Due to the improper admission of negotiation evidence and the failure to provide AMI 901 and 903 instructions, the decision is reversed and remanded. Harris, C.J. and Justices Fogleman and Holt concur.