Title: Willis v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Tina ADAMS, Chris Debaldo, Scott Willis and
Joseph Sappington v. HLC HOTELS, INC., d/b/a
Masters Economy Inn and Steven L. Womack,
Individually

96-1294                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered April 14, 1997


1.   Negligence -- jury concluded that none of appellants sustained
     damages -- errors alleged by appellants harmless. -- Where the
     jury, through its answers in special interrogatories,
     determined that none of the appellants sustained damages as a
     result of the occurrence at the hotel, the errors alleged by
     appellants were harmless; examination of jury interrogatories
     is an appropriate way to determine exactly what the jury
     believed; a jury verdict may demonstrate that an alleged error
     by the trial court was harmless; to make a prima facie case of
     negligence, one of the elements a plaintiff must prove is that
     he or she sustained damages.

2.   New trial -- trial court not required to allow reply
     affidavits when considering new-trial motion -- decision of
     trial court affirmed. -- The appellants' argument that the
     trial court erred in entering its order denying their motion
     for new trial prior to receipt of their reply to the hotel's
     response to the motion was without merit; Ark. R. Civ. P.
     59(d) states that it is within the trial court's discretion
     whether to allow a reply to a response to a motion for new
     trial; the plain language of the rule does not require the
     trial court to allow reply affidavits; the decision of the
     trial court was affirmed.


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Sixth Division; David
Bogard, Judge; affirmed.
     Eichenbaum, Scott, Miller, Liles & Heister, P.A., by:  James
H. Penick, III, for appellants.
     Barber, McCaskill, Jones & Hale, P.A., by: G. Spence Frike and
Derek J. Edwards, for appellees.
 
     W.H."Dub" Arnold, Chief Justice.
     This case arises from an altercation that occurred on May 8,
1994, at a Little Rock hotel.  The appellants, Tina Adams, Chris
Debaldo, Scott Willis, and Joseph Sappington brought an intentional
tort action for assault and battery against appellee Steven L.
Womack, a security guard.  They also sued Womack's employer,
separate appellee HLC Hotels, Inc., d/b/a Masters Economy Inn, for
negligent hiring and supervision.  Appellee Womack counterclaimed
for compensatory and punitive damages.  At the close of the
appellants' case-in-chief, the trial court directed a verdict in
the hotel's favor on the negligent hiring and supervision claims. 
In a verdict on interrogatories on the remaining claims, a jury
found no intentional misconduct on the part of Womack, but found
intentional conduct on the part of appellants and awarded Womack
$2959.25 in compensatory damages and $1000.00 in punitive damages.
     Appellants do not appeal the granting of the directed verdict
in the hotel's favor on the negligent hiring and supervision
claims.  Instead, they maintain that the jury was erroneously
precluded from considering the hotel's independent negligence for
failing to implement the appropriate policies and procedures which,
according to them, could have prevented the incident from taking
place.  Specifically, they assert that the trial court should have
given their proffered instruction on negligence, and that, pursuant
to Ark. R. Civ. P. 15(b), the trial court should have permitted
them to amend their pleadings to conform to the evidence presented
at trial on this ground of negligence.
     The fatal flaw with appellants' allegations of error is that
the jury, through its answers in special interrogatories,
determined that none of the appellants sustained damages as a
result of the occurrence at the hotel.  We have indicated that
examination of jury interrogatories is an appropriate way to
determine exactly what the jury believed, and that a jury verdict
may demonstrate that an alleged error by the trial court was
harmless.  Morris v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 299 Ark. 196, 771 S.W.2d 761 (1989); Billings v. Gipson, 297 Ark. 510, 763 S.W.2d 85
(1989).  It is axiomatic that, to make a prima facie case of
negligence, one of the elements a plaintiff must prove is that he
or she sustained damages.  Anslemo v. Tuck, 325 Ark. 211, 924 S.W.2d 798 (1996).  Because the jury concluded that none of the
appellants sustained damages as a result of the altercation at the
hotel, the errors alleged by appellants are harmless.
     Appellants further submit that the trial court erred in
entering its order denying their motion for new trial prior to
receipt of their reply to the hotel's response to the motion.  Rule
59(d) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure governs the time for
filing affidavits in support of or in opposition to a new trial
motion.  It states: 
     When a motion for a new trial is based upon affidavits,
     they shall be filed with the motion. The opposing party
     shall have 10 days after service within which to file
     opposing affidavits which period may be extended for an
     additional period not exceeding 20 days either by the
     court for good cause shown or by the parties by written
     stipulation. The court may permit reply affidavits.

(Emphasis added.)  Pursuant to the above language, it is within the
trial court's discretion whether to allow a reply to a response to
a motion for new trial.  Because the plain language of the rule
does not require the trial court to allow reply affidavits, the
appellants' argument is unpersuasive.  For the foregoing reasons,
the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
     Affirmed.