Title: Smith v. Hansen

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Jerry SMITH and Brenda Smith v. Marilyn
HANSEN, Lynne Rice, Jeffrey Scott Metcalf,
Chris Young, Southern Guaranty Insurance
Company, and Continental Casualty Company

95-315                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 22, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- prevailing party bound by trial court's
     decision. -- Where two of the appellees successfully moved to
     dismiss the negligence claim before the trial court but
     contended on appeal that the dismissal was error by the trial
     court, the supreme court held that, having prevailed below,
     they were bound by the trial court's decision in their favor.

2.   Negligence -- when summary judgment is appropriate. -- Where
     a negligence claim is made, if no duty of care is owed, the
     negligence count is decided as a matter of law, and summary
     judgment is appropriate.

3.   Negligence -- duty to control conduct of third person -- not
     owed unless special relationship exists between tortfeasor and
     third person or victim. --  Ordinarily one is not liable for
     the acts of another party unless a special relationship exists
     between the tortfeasor and the victim; moreover, there is no
     duty so to control the conduct of a third person as to prevent
     him from causing physical harm to another unless a special
     relationship exists between the actor and the third person
     that imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third
     person's conduct, or a special relationship exists between the
     actor and the other that gives to the other a right to
     protection.

4.   Negligence -- no bona fide claim of negligence existed. -- The
     supreme court held that no bona fide claim of negligence was
     present where no special relationship existed between 
     appellees Hansen and Rice and appellants at the time of the
     beating of appellants and no special relationship giving rise
     to a duty to control existed at that time between Hansen and
     Rice and the two perpetrators of the crime.

5.   Negligence -- case presented cause of action of intentional
     tort rather than negligence -- summary judgment appropriately
     granted. -- The supreme court held that the present case
     presented a cause of action of intentional tort premised on a
     contract to beat appellants but not a cause of action for
     negligence; without the existence of some special
     relationship, or evidence of encouragement to third parties by
     one in a position of some control or authority over them, no
     duty of care flowed from appellees Hansen and Rice to
     appellants; the supreme court held that the trial court
     appropriately granted summary judgment on the negligence
     issue.

6.   Appeal & error -- prevailing party has no standing to
     challenge issue decided favorably. -- Where appellants
     asserted that trial court erred in refusing to modify the
     outrage instruction, the supreme court held that they had no
     standing to make this argument because the jury returned a
     verdict in favor of appellants on the outrage claim.

7.   Damages -- trial court may not substitute its judgment for
     jury's when there is basis in evidence. -- A trial court may
     not substitute its judgment for the jury's when there is a
     basis in the evidence for the award and when there is no
     evidence, appropriately objected to, that tends to create
     passion or prejudice.

8.   Damages -- remittitur reviewed de novo. -- The supreme court
     reviews the issue of remittitur de novo and determines whether
     the amount of the judgment shocks its conscience.

9.   Damages -- remittitur order reversed and remanded for
     reinstatement of original verdicts. -- Where the trial court
     made no finding that the jury award was the result of passion
     or prejudice; the compensatory damages awarded did not shock
     the conscience of the appellate court; and the assault and
     battery at issue had been unquestionably and understandably
     traumatic and cause for considerable mental anguish, the
     supreme court reversed the remittitur order, remanding the
     matter with directions to reinstate the original verdicts of
     $250,000.

10.  New Trial -- denial of motion -- standard of review -- trial
     court did not err. -- The standard of review for the denial of
     a motion for new trial is whether the verdict was supported by
     substantial evidence; where the supreme court concluded that
     appellee Metcalf's testimony alone easily constituted
     substantial evidence of agency, battery, and virulent conduct
     on the part of appellees Hansen and Rice, it held that the
     trial court did not err in denying appellees' motion for a new
     trial.

11.  Damages -- punitive damages -- no fixed standard of
     measurement -- factors that may be considered. -- There is no
     set standard for measuring punitive damages, and the
     calculation of those damages lies within the discretion of the
     jury after due consideration of all the attendant
     circumstances; the penalty must be sufficient to deter similar
     conduct on the part of the same tortfeasor, and it should be
     sufficient to deter others who engage in similar conduct; the
     jury is free to consider the extent and the enormity of the
     wrong, the intent of the parties, and the financial and social
     standing of the parties.

12.  Damages -- punitive damages -- trial court did not err in
     submitting issue to jury. -- Where the outrage claim was
     directed only at appellees Hansen and Rice, and appellee
     Metcalf did not strike appellants and also testified on their
     behalf, there were varying degrees of culpability, and the
     trial court did not err in submitting the issue of punitive
     damages to the jury.

13.  Damages -- punitive damages -- purpose -- not mandatory --
     remand not warranted on due-process grounds. -- Arkansas law,
     as evidenced by AMI 2217, does not provide for unlimited jury
     discretion in the award of punitive damages; under AMI 2217,
     punitive damages are awarded for deterrence and retribution
     purposes; AMI 2217 also instructs the jury that the imposition
     of punitive damages is not mandatory; the supreme court held
     that there were no grounds for a remand on the basis of the
     decision in Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip,