Case Title: Duque v. Oshman's Sporting Goods--Services, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-02-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Ruth Jayne Albey DUQUE, Administratrix of the
Estate of Day Michele Albey, Deceased v.
OSHMAN'S SPORTING GOODS--SERVICES, INC., et
al.

96-204                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 10, 1997


1.   Evidence -- challenge on appeal to ruling excluding evidence -
     - excluded evidence must be proffered. -- To challenge a
     ruling excluding evidence, an appellant must proffer the
     excluded evidence so as to permit review of a trial court's
     decision, unless the substance of the evidence is apparent;
     failure to proffer evidence so that the appellate court can
     see if prejudice results from its exclusion precludes review
     of the evidence on appeal. 

2.   Appeal & error -- proffer of excluded evidence not made --
     abstract insufficient -- judgment affirmed. -- Where it
     appeared from the abstracts before the court that appellant
     did not proffer the substance of the evidence that was
     excluded, the abstracts did not contain the materials
     necessary for a review of the trial court's evidentiary
     rulings, and the judgment was affirmed; review on appeal is
     limited to the record as abstracted; the appellate court will
     not reach the merits of a case when the documents in the
     transcript that are necessary for an understanding of the case
     are not abstracted. 


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; David Bogard, Judge;
affirmed.
     The McMath Law Firm, P.A., by:  Sandy S. McMath, for
appellant.
     Barber, McCaskill, Amsler, Jones & Hale, P.A., by:  William H.
Edwards, Jr. and Derek J. Edwards, for appellee.


     David Newbern, Justice.
     Ruth Jayne Albey Duque, administratrix of the estate of her
daughter, Day Michele Albey, sued Oshman's Sporting Goods--
Services, Inc., Oshman's Sporting Goods--Arkansas, Inc., and others
who are not parties to this appeal.  We will refer to the two
defendants named above collectively as "Oshman's."  The claim was
that Oshman's negligently sold a pistol to a man who used it to
kill Ms. Albey.  The judgment, based on a jury verdict, favored
Oshman's.  Ms. Duque's points of appeal concern evidentiary rulings
by the Trial Court.  We are unable to reach the merits of the
rulings, and we affirm the judgment in favor of Oshman's, because
we find in neither party's abstract of the record the necessary
proffers of the evidence alleged to have been erroneously excluded.
     Jimmy L. Sweeney purchased a pistol and ammunition from an
Oshman's Sporting Goods store.  A few minutes later he loaded the
pistol and walked into a store where Ms. Albey, his former
girlfriend, was working.  He killed Ms. Albey, and then himself,
using the pistol purchased from Oshman's.
     Ms. Duque alleged two counts of negligence against Oshman's. 
She first claimed that Oshman's was negligent for selling the
pistol to Mr. Sweeney when it knew or should have known, in light
of Mr. Sweeney's appearance or behavior at the time of sale, that
he was likely to misuse the pistol.  Ms. Duque also claimed that
Oshman's was negligent for failing to implement a written "safe-
sales policy" that would have warned its personnel of the "profile"
of a consumer who was likely to misuse a firearm.  Had such a
policy been in place at Oshman's, asserted Ms. Duque, the store
personnel would not have sold the pistol to Mr. Sweeney.
     In response to a series of special interrogatories, the jury
found that Oshman's had not committed negligence that was a
proximate cause of Ms. Albey's death.  The jury found that Mr.
Sweeney had engaged in intentional conduct that was the proximate
cause of Ms. Albey's death and that Mr. Sweeney's acts were an
intervening proximate cause of Ms. Albey's death.  
     Ms. Duque asserts that the Trial Court erred by (1) granting
Oshman's motion in limine to exclude evidence of previous instances
in which other consumers misused the firearms they purchased from
Oshman's; (2) denying Ms. Duque the opportunity to cross-examine an
Oshman's representative about such prior occurrences; and (3)
granting Oshman's motion in limine to prohibit one of Ms. Duque's
witnesses from giving an expert opinion describing the aspects of
a consumer's appearance or behavior that should have alerted
Oshman's personnel of the likelihood of the consumer's misusing the
weapon.
     Neither Ms. Duque's abstract nor the supplemental abstract
provided by Oshman's demonstrates that Ms. Duque proffered the
evidence that she asserts was erroneously excluded.  According to
Arkansas Rule of Evidence 103,

     [e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits
     or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the
     party is affected, and ...
          (2) Offer of proof.  In case the ruling is one
     excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was
     made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the
     context within which questions were asked.

Ark. R. Evid. 103(a)(2).
     To challenge a ruling excluding evidence, an appellant must
proffer the excluded evidence so as to permit review of a trial
court's decision, unless the substance of the evidence is apparent. 
Wade v. Grace, 321 Ark. 482,