Case Title: Home Insurance Co. v. Allied Telephone Co.

Citation: 442 S.W.2d 211

Docket Number: 5-4897

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1969-05-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
442 S.W.2d 211 (1969) HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. ALLIED TELEPHONE COMPANY et al., Appellees. No. 5-4897. Supreme Court of Arkansas. May 26, 1969. Rehearing Denied July 14, 1969. *212 Terral, Rawlings, Matthews & Purtle, Little Rock, for appellant. McMillen, Teague, Bramhall & Davis, Little Rock, for appellees. JONES, Justice. Olin S. Payte sued Allied Telephone Company in the Pike County Circuit Court for property damages growing out of an automobile collision. Olin S. Payte died during the pendency of the action and Home Insurance Company, who had paid the collision loss to Payte under an insurance contract it had with him, was substituted as party plaintiff under its subrogation agreement with Payte. A jury trial resulted in a judgment for Allied. Home Insurance has appealed and relies on the following points for reversal: The recorded facts are as follows: Johnny Payte was the son of Olin Payte, and on March 9, 1967, between 9:30 and 10:00 a. m., Johnny Payte was driving an automobile registered in his father's name north on a county road in Pike County and Johnny's wife was riding as a passenger in the front seat with him. As he drove over a "rise" in the highway, a truck belonging to appellee and being driven by its employee, Richard Ray, was traveling south meeting the Payte automobile. According to the uncontradicted testimony of the investigating officer, the Payte vehicle skidded fifty-four feet and the appellee's vehicle *213 skidded ten feet, and the two vehicles collided with the point of impact being about one foot and four inches east of the center line, and on Payte's side of the road. The traveled portion of the gravel road was sixteen feet and six inches wide at this point. The Payte automobile was damaged in the amount of $925.00. The police officer testified that appellee's truck was over the center line of the highway and that from his investigation at the scene of the collision, he was of the opinion that the Payte automobile was traveling too fast for the conditions of the highway. Mrs. Payte testified that as she and her husband came over a rise in the highway, the appellee's vehicle was in the center of the road "a little on our side." She testified that her husband was driving about thirty miles per hour. Mrs. Payte was asked and answered questions as follows: The above questions and answers by Mrs. Payte are the only evidence in the record pertaining to the agency relationship between the owner and the driver of the automobile. If the pronoun "you" in the questions was used or understood in the singular, it shed no light at all on the agency relationship between the driver and the owner. If the question was asked and understood in the plural, the answers could have been interpreted to say that Mrs. Payte and her husband, who was driving an automobile registered in his father's name, had just gotten off from school at 9:30 in the morning and had started to Mrs. Payte's mother-in-law's house on their own personal business and not on an errand for her husband's father. Be that as it may, the whole case was tried on the theory that Johnny Payte was a permissive bailee of the automobile and there was no evidence to the contrary. One subpoena was issued for Trooper Rex Martin, Johnny Payte and Mavis Payte. It was served on Mr. Martin and Mrs. Payte, but was not served on Johnny Payte and he did not testify at the trial. Mr. Ray, the driver of appellee's truck, was permitted to testify as to statements made to him by Johnny Payte following the collision. This testimony was offered and admitted as admissions against interest and it was objected to because Johnny Payte was not a party to the lawsuit and as being self-serving if he were. What the objection actually amounted to was that it was inadmissible as hearsay evidence. The testimony of Mr. Ray as to what Johnny Payte said to him and the objections made to it are copied from the record as follows: We are of the opinion that the trial court should not have admitted the statement as an admission against interest in the absence of evidence that Johnny Payte had actual, or implied, authority to make such admission. The record reflects, however, that Johnny Payte was a bailee of the automobile at the time of the collision and as such would have been liable to the owner for any damage to the vehicle caused by his own negligence. In determining the admissibility of statements into evidence as exceptions to the hearsay rule, there is a distinction between declarations against interest and admissions against interest. In vol. 2, Ark.L. Rev., pages 26-52 (1947-48) appears an article by Dr. Robert A. Leflar entitled "Theory of Evidential Admissibility Statements Made Out of Court," and under subheading "Declarations Against Interest" at page 41, Dr. Leflar states: And under subheading "Admissions by a Party or One in Privity" Dr. Leflar says: And then on page 43 Dr. Leflar continues: See also Wilkins v. Enterprise TV, Inc., 231 Ark. 958, 333 S.W.2d 718. We conclude, therefore, in view of young Payte's potential liability, that any statements made by him absolving another party of fault for the damage inflicted, could not be said to be self-serving and such statements were admissible as declarations against interest if Johnny Payte was not available as a witness. The burden was on the appellee to show that Payte was not available, but a specific objection to the introduction of testimony because of failure to lay the proper foundation must be made before it can be said that admission of the testimony was error. Smith v. State, 243 Ark. 12, 418 S.W.2d 627. The reason for this rule is that otherwise the court is not apprised of the deficiency and the adverse party is not given an opportunity to supply it. We conclude, therefore, that the admission of the declarations of Johnny Payte did not constitute error. The appellant's proposed instruction does not appear in the record as such, but in chambers the appellant's attorney made the following statement: The trial court did not err in refusing to give this instruction. Negligence is not compensable in damages unless the damage is caused by the negligence, or the negligence is a proximate cause of the damage. The trial court did give instruction No. 4, as follows: The judgment is affirmed. BYRD, J., dissents.