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.
Grummer v. Cummings
Citations: 336 Ark. 447; 986 S.W.2d 91; 1999 Ark. LEXIS 104Docket: 98-440
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; February 25, 1999; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
On October 27, 1994, Wally Grummer was injured in a car accident involving Ellen Cummings, leading Grummer to file a negligence lawsuit against her. During a jury trial in August 1997, Cummings attempted to undermine Grummer's credibility by presenting evidence of inconsistent statements he made regarding his use of a seat belt at the time of the accident. Grummer objected to this evidence based on Ark. Code Ann. section 27-37-703, which prohibits the use of seat-belt nonuse as evidence of comparative or contributory negligence. The trial court, however, denied Grummer's motion to exclude this evidence, ruling it relevant for assessing his credibility. After closing arguments, the court instructed the jury that any evidence of seat-belt nonuse was solely for credibility evaluation and not to be considered for negligence assessments. Grummer appealed, contesting the denial of his motion to exclude seat-belt evidence and the alleged improper jury instruction. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the seat-belt nonuse evidence, leading to a reversal and remand of the case. During the trial, Grummer admitted to conflicting statements about his seat belt use to both police and medical personnel, with the investigating officer reporting Grummer claimed he was unrestrained, while a treating physician recalled Grummer saying he was wearing one. The appeals court emphasized that a trial court's evidentiary ruling should not be reversed unless there's an abuse of discretion and that evidence must be weighed for its probative value against potential prejudice. Ultimately, the appellate court ruled in favor of Grummer, stating the trial court's admission of the conflicting statements was inappropriate. The trial court instructed the jury that evidence of the appellant's nonuse of a seat belt could only be considered for assessing credibility, not for the negligence claim against the appellee. The appellee referenced Frazier v. State to support the principle that courts must limit evidence to its intended purpose to avoid prejudice. Although limiting instructions can mitigate prejudicial effects, the admission of seat-belt nonuse evidence was deemed highly prejudicial in this case, outweighing its probative value. The appellee acknowledged the availability of other admissible evidence regarding the appellant’s credibility, specifically inconsistencies in the account of the accident. Consequently, the court ruled that admitting seat-belt nonuse evidence constituted an abuse of discretion. The appellate court reversed the decision and remanded the case without addressing the appellant’s second appeal point. The discussion noted that only the 1993 version of Ark. Code Ann. section 27-37-703 was relevant to the case, despite subsequent amendments in 1995.