Case Title: Fisher v. Valco Farms

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Vernon FISHER v. VALCO FARMS, a Partnership;
Danny McCollum; and Air-Aids, Inc., a
Corporation

96-661                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 2, 1997


1.   Trial -- verdict -- setting aside -- preponderance-of-evidence standard. -
     - The supreme court has imposed strict limitations on the
     exercise of a trial court's discretion in setting aside a jury
     verdict and requires that the verdict must be clearly against
     the preponderance of the evidence.

2.   New trial -- review of denial. -- On review of the denial of a
     motion for a new trial, the test is whether there is any
     substantial evidence to support the jury verdict.

3.   New trial -- substantial evidence supported jury verdict -- trial court did
     not abuse discretion in denying new-trial motion. -- Where the jury's
     verdict, which found that appellees were not negligent in
     applying a chemical to a rice field, was supported by
     substantial evidence suggesting several possible sources of
     damage to appellant's cotton, the supreme court concluded that
     the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not granting
     appellant's motion for a new trial.

4.   New trial -- reversal of decision requires showing of abuse of discretion.
     -- The appellate court reverses a trial court's decision
     granting or refusing a new trial only where an abuse of
     discretion is shown.

5.   Trial -- verdict -- failure to object to irregularity before discharge of
     jury constitutes waiver. -- The failure to object to some
     irregularity in a verdict prior to the discharge of the jury
     constitutes a waiver of that irregularity; the time to correct
     or clarify a verdict is before the jury is discharged.

6.   Trial -- verdict -- no objection from either party after poll -- trial
     court did not abuse discretion in accepting verdict. -- Where the jury
     was polled at appellant's request, and nine of the twelve
     jurors supported the verdict, and where there was no objection
     from either party after the poll, the supreme court concluded
     that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in accepting
     the verdict.

7.   Appeal & error -- review limited to record as abstracted. -- The
     appellate court's review is limited to the record as
     abstracted; where appellant did not abstract the verdict form
     on which he based a claim of irregularity, the argument was
     procedurally barred.

8.   Trial -- verdict -- waiver of objection to unsigned verdict form. -- The
     requirement that the verdict be in writing and signed by the
     foreman is waived when rendered in open court, duly received
     without objection by either party, and thereafter duly
     recorded; an appellant waives any objection to the verdict
     when it is returned without the foreman's signature, and the
     appellant is present and makes no objection.

9.   Trial -- verdict -- appellant waived objection to requirement that verdict
     forms be signed. -- Where the verdict was in writing and rendered
     in open court, as required under Ark. Code Ann.  16-64-119(c)
     (1987), was duly received without objection, and was duly
     recorded, the supreme court concluded that appellant waived
     any objection to the requirement that the verdict forms be
     signed.

10.  Trial -- jury-instruction objection -- appellant's burden. -- Under ARCP
     Rule 51, any objections to a jury instruction must be made
     before or at the time the instructions are given; the burden
     is on appellant to make a proffer of the instruction to the
     trial court and to make his objections.

11.  Trial -- jury-instruction objection -- In the instance of a jury-
     instruction objection, the proffered instruction must be
     included in the record and abstract to enable the appellate
     court to consider it; an instruction that is not contained in
     the record is not preserved and will not be addressed on
     appeal. 
12.  Appeal & error -- neither abstract nor record contained requested
     instructions -- argument not reached. -- Where neither the abstract
     nor the record contained either instruction requested by
     appellant, the supreme court could not determine from the
     record whether, or in what form, the proposed instructions
     were proffered; the court did not reach appellant's argument
     that the trial court failed to give either of the instructions
     because it was not preserved for review.

13.  Appeal & error -- directed-verdict argument not reached where appellant
     never obtained ruling. -- The burden of obtaining a ruling is on
     the movant, and any objections and questions left unresolved
     are waived and may not be relied upon on appeal; the supreme
     court could not reach appellant's argument that the trial
     court erred in failing to grant his directed-verdict motion
     because he never obtained a ruling; it was appellant's burden
     to obtain a ruling, and the absence of a ruling constituted a
     waiver of the issue on appeal.

14.  Appeal & error -- contributory-negligence argument not preserved for
     review. -- To preserve the issue concerning a contributory-
     negligence instruction, appellant was required to make a
     timely objection by informing the trial judge why the
     instruction was wrong; where the record did not reflect that
     appellant made any objection to the trial court's jury
     instruction on contributory negligence, and where no
     supplement to the record had been received, the issue was not
     preserved for review.


     Appeal from Poinsett Circuit Court; David Burnett, Judge;
affirmed.
     Mike Everett, for appellant.
     Fletcher Long, Jr., for appellees.

     Ray Thornton, Justice.
     A cotton crop belonging to appellant Vernon Fisher was damaged
by an agricultural chemical that drifted onto his cotton.  Mr.
Fisher brought an action against appellees, Valco Farms, Danny
McCollum, and Air-Aids, Inc., claiming that their negligence in
applying the chemical, 2,4-D, to a rice field belonging to Valco
Farms by cropdusters operated by Air-Aids, Inc., caused damage to
appellant's cotton crop located two miles north of the rice field. 
The jury returned a verdict finding that appellees were not
negligent.
     Appellant moved for a new trial alleging that irregularities
existed in the proceedings and that the verdict was clearly
contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.  The trial court did
not rule on this motion and it was deemed denied.  On appeal,
appellant also asserts that the court committed error in failing to
instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur, AMI Civ. 3d 611, and in
failing to instruct on the inherent danger of 2,4-D, AMI Civ. 3d
708.  Appellant also urges that the court erred in failing to grant
his motion for a directed verdict on contributory negligence and in
including a provision regarding appellant's contributory negligence
in the verdict forms.  We have reviewed each point and have
determined that the judgment should be affirmed.
     We first consider appellant's allegation that the verdict was
clearly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.  We have
imposed strict limitations on the exercise of a trial court's
discretion in setting aside a jury verdict and require that the
verdict must be clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. 
Ray v. Green, 310 Ark. 571,