Title: Ambrus v. Russell Chevrolet Co.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

James AMBRUS v. RUSSELL CHEVROLET COMPANY

96-969                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 17, 1997


1.   Motions -- order granting directed-verdict motion verdict --
     factors on review. -- In reviewing an order granting a motion
     for a directed verdict, the court views the evidence most
     favorably to the party against whom the verdict was directed;
     if evidence exists that establishes negligence beyond
     conjecture or speculation, it is error for the trial court to
     take the case from the jury.

2.   Negligence -- defined -- elements necessary to establish prima
     facie case. -- Negligence has been defined as the failure to
     do something that a reasonably careful person would do; to
     establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must
     show that he sustained damages, that the defendant was
     negligent, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of
     those damages; while direct or circumstantial evidence may
     establish negligence, reliance on inferences based on
     conjecture or speculation are not sufficient.

3.   Negligence -- when evidence of negligence is insubstantial --
     fact that accident occurred is not of itself evidence of
     negligence. -- Evidence of negligence is insubstantial where
     a factfinder is merely given a choice of possibilities that
     require the jury to resort to conjecture or guess as to a
     cause; the fact that an injury, collision, or accident
     occurred is not of itself evidence of negligence or fault on
     the part of anyone.

4.   Appeal & error -- issues raised for first time on appeal not
     addressed. -- Where it did not appear from the record that the
     issue of recusal was ever addressed to the trial court, the
     issue was not addressed on appeal; the supreme court does not
     address arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

5.   Negligence -- no substantial evidence that appellee's employee
     was negligent -- directed verdict affirmed. -- Where there was
     no substantial evidence that appellee's employee was negligent
     in being in the lane of traffic where the accident occurred,
     neither was substantial evidence introduced to show that the
     appellee's employee was negligent in failing to stop before
     the collision, and the minor damage to appellant's vehicle did
     not establish beyond conjecture or speculation that the
     appellee's driver was speeding, the supreme court agreed with
     the trial judge's finding that no substantial evidence of
     negligence by appellee's driver had been presented; the
     directed verdict was affirmed.   


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Sixth Division; David
Bogard, Judge; affirmed; motion to strike reply brief denied.
     Dodds, Kidd, Ryan & Moore, by: Robert T. James, for appellant.
     Barber, McCaskill, Jones & Hale, P.A., by: Micheal L.
Alexander and Thomas E. Osment, Jr., for appellee. 

     Ray Thornton, Justice.
     Mr. James Ambrus, appellant, was injured in an accident while
driving cars for his employer at an automobile auction.  He alleged
that the negligence of the driver of a van belonging to Russell
Chevrolet caused the accident.  At the conclusion of Mr. Ambrus's
case, Russell was granted a directed verdict based on the trial
court's ruling that no substantial evidence had been introduced to
establish that Russell's driver was negligent.  Mr. Ambrus appeals,
and we affirm the decision of the trial court.
     As we review an order granting a motion for a directed
verdict, we view the evidence most favorably to the party against
whom the verdict was directed; if evidence exists that establishes
negligence beyond conjecture or speculation, it is error for the
trial court to take the case from the jury.  City of Little Rock v.
Cameron, 320 Ark. 444,