Title: Driggers v. Locke

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Bob DRIGGERS v. Ken LOCKE

95-598                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 16, 1996


1.   Judgment -- summary judgment -- when final appealable order
     exists. -- In answering the question of whether the summary
     judgment is a final, appealable order the court has found that
     a party who has several claims against another may not take a
     voluntary nonsuit of one claim and appeal an adverse judgment
     as to the other claims when it is clear that the intent is to
     refile the nonsuited claim and thus give rise to the
     possibility of piecemeal appeals.  

2.   Judgment -- nonsuit was against one of several parties --
     where there are multiple parties the disposition of the case
     as to fewer than all does not amount to a final appealable
     order. -- Here the nonsuit was not with respect to one of
     several claims against a party but was a nonsuit with respect
     to one of several parties; Arkansas R. Civ. P. 54(b) clearly
     states that when there are multiple parties the disposition of
     the case as to fewer than all does not amount to a final,
     appealable order absent a certification of the Trial Court
     that there is no need to delay the entry of a final judgment.

3.   Judgment -- finality of judgment where there has been a
     nonsuit without prejudice against one of multiple parties
     arising out of a single incident -- similar cases have not
     been dismissed. -- There is very little authority on the
     matter of the finality of a judgment when there has been a
     nonsuit without prejudice against one of multiple parties to
     litigation arising out of a single incident; the supreme court
     has not dismissed other appeals which have come to the court
     in this posture.  

4.   Judgment -- final and appealable order -- where the nonsuit is
     to a party and not to an issue in the case -- previous ruling
     inapplicable. -- Nothing requires a plaintiff to sue the
     prospective defendants simultaneously, if, however, a
     plaintiff has a number of claims against a single party, the
     doctrine of res judicata will bar issues which could have been
     litigated between them but were not; if appellant had sued the
     appellees and not joined the other driver, the summary
     judgment in favor of the appellees would have unquestionably
     been a final, appealable order, and appellant could have sued
     the driver later; the fact that he began an action against the
     driver and then took a nonsuit left the parties in the same
     positions as they would have occupied had the claim against
     the driver merely been delayed rather than nonsuited; the
     rationale of the Haile case that a party who has several
     claims against another may not take a voluntary nonsuit of one
     claim and appeal an adverse judgment as to the other claims
     when it is clear that the intent is to refile the nonsuited
     claim and thus give rise to piecemeal appeals, does not apply
     when the nonsuit is as to a party and not an issue in the
     case.  

5.   Torts -- question of whether a duty owed is always a question
     of law. -- The question of whether a duty is owed is always a
     question of law.

6.   Negligence -- duty of landowner at common law -- no duty
     imposed to control vegetation for the benefit of users of a
     public highway. -- There is no common law duty imposed upon a
     landowner to control the vegetation on his property for the
     benefit of users of a public highway. 

7.   Highways -- common law rule adhered to -- court declined to
     place the burden of public safety on those whose properties
     abut streets and highways. -- Where the order granting summary
     judgment did not specify the basis, the appellate court
     concluded that the Trial Court agreed there was no duty on the
     part of the landowners, otherwise, there would have obviously
     been questions of fact to be decided with respect to
     causation, and summary judgment would have been inappropriate;
     the appellate court declined to reject the common law rule or,
     absent legislation to the contrary, place the burden of public
     safety on those whose properties abut public streets and
     highways.


     Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; W.H. "Dub" Arnold, Judge;
affirmed.
     Gary Eubanks & Associates, by:  James Gerard Schulze and T.
Michael Lee, for appellant.
     Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, P.A., by:  Beverly A.
Rowlett, for appellee.

     David Newbern, Justice.
     1/16/95   Justice David Newbern

                                     95-598
BOB DRIGGERS
                                     Appeal from Clark Circuit
           Appellant                 Court (94-67)

         v.                          Honorable W.H. "Dub" Arnold,
                                     Circuit Judge
KEN LOCKE

           Appellee                  Affirmed







     Bob Driggers, the appellant, sued Buddy Neal and Ken and
Louann Locke for damages resulting from an automobile accident
which occurred at an intersection in Arkadelphia.  The record
reveals that Mr. Driggers was unable to serve Buddy Neal, the
driver of the other vehicle.  The allegation against the Lockes was
that holly bushes growing on their property at the intersection so
impaired motorists' ability to see oncoming vehicles as to be a
cause of the accident.  The Lockes denied liability and moved for
summary judgment which was entered in their favor.  Mr. Driggers
took a voluntary nonsuit of his claim against Buddy Neal and
appealed the summary judgment which we affirm.

                    1. Finality of the order
     Although no issue as to the finality of the order has been
raised by the parties, our recent decision in Haile v. Arkansas
Power & Light Co., 322 Ark. 29,