Title: Robinson v. Robinson

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Harry G. ROBINSON, Jr. and Miriam Robinson v.
Heather Renee ROBINSON

95-763                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 29, 1996


1.   Torts -- parental immunity doctrine -- doctrine inapplicable
     where appellant was unemancipated minor at the time of the
     alleged tort. -- A willful tort committed by a parent against
     his child is beyond the scope of the parental immunity
     doctrine, thus the doctrine does not preclude a child from
     suing his parent for willful and wanton conduct; however, the
     parental immunity doctrine does bar an unemancipated minor
     from maintaining an action for an involuntary tort against her
     parent; the parental immunity doctrine is based upon the
     rationale that to permit such a suit would interfere with the
     parent's authority over the child, thereby encouraging
     disobedience and interfering with family harmony; the parental
     immunity doctrine is the law in this jurisdiction; the
     doctrine is applicable in this situation where, although
     appellee had attained her legal age when this action was
     commenced, she was an unemancipated minor at the time of the
     alleged tort.  

2.   Negligence -- negligence the sole theory for liability imposed
     -- failure to instruct the jury on the theory of intentional
     tort -- prejudicial error found. -- Negligence was the sole
     theory for the liability of the appellant/mother that was
     alleged in the complaint and upon which the jury was
     instructed, appellee neither amended her complaint nor
     proffered any jury instruction as to willful and wanton
     conduct or any theory of intentional tort as an alternative
     theory of liability for her mother; because the jury was not
     instructed on any theory of intentional tort as a basis for
     the mother's liability, the jury's finding of liability was
     based on a theory of negligence, and, therefore, appellants
     demonstrated prejudicial error; the judgment against the
     appellant/mother was reversed and the action against her
     dismissed.

3.   Damages -- jury determines amount of damages -- trial court
     has some power to put defective verdict in form carry out the
     intention of the jury, but may not substitute its conclusion
     as to a material matter. -- It is well-established that the
     jury is the judge of the question of the amount of damages as
     well as of the question of liability; nonetheless, in
     fashioning the judgment, the court has the power to put a
     manifestly irregular or defective verdict in such form as to
     make it conform to the intention of the jury, and carry their
     findings into effect, where the intention can be ascertained
     with certainty; the trial court is not authorized, however, to
     invade the province of the jury by substituting its conclusion
     as to a material matter.  

4.   Damages -- trial court impermissibly invaded the province of
     the jury to determine the amount of damages -- new trial
     ordered for determination of damages and liability. -- Where
     the judgment altered the verdict's award in trust by awarding
     damages against the appellant/father, on an outright basis, in
     an amount that included the entire $25,000.00 sum, the
     judgment did not conform to the jury's intention, with any
     certainty, as regards the amount of the damages award for
     future medical expenses, and, to that extent, the trial court
     impermissibly invaded the province of the jury to determine
     the amount of damages; the judgment against appellant was
     reversed and remanded for a new trial to include both damages
     and liability issues.  

5.   Damages -- award of punitive damages not error -- record did
     not support appellant's argument. -- Appellant's argument that
     the $20,000.00 punitive damages award against him individually
     was erroneous in the absence of a lawful verdict for
     compensatory damages was without merit; in light of the
     $4,335.00 award for past medical expenses, based on the
     testimony of a psychologist that appellee had an outstanding
     unpaid bill in that amount for her services, the record did
     not support appellant's premise for his argument.

6.   Appeal & error -- objection at trial level needed to reach
     issue on appeal -- no objection made. -- Where the trial court
     declined to rule on the motion with respect to one party, it
     was necessary for appellant to make a specific objection
     during the trial to preserve the argument for appeal; the
     record, however, failed to show that any such objection was
     made.     

7.   Evidence -- admission of statement may have been error --
     error not shown to be prejudicial. -- Admission of the
     challenged statement may have violated the trial court's
     ruling on the motion in limine, but no prejudicial error was
     demonstrated; it was not contended that Ark. R. Evid. Rule 702
     was violated or that the jury was fully competent to determine
     whether appellee's refusal to give her last name to the
     Center's rape crisis service was consistent with sexual abuse;
     appellee provided explicit testimony of the alleged abuse; and
     the witness's testimony was based on her own personal
     knowledge of behavior in a rape crisis center.



     Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District;
Floyd G. Rogers, Judge; reversed and dismissed in part; reversed
and remanded in part.
     Eddie N. Christian and Matthew Horan, for appellants.
     Sam Sexton, Jr., for appellee.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice. 
     *ADVREP3* 
1-29-96





HARRY G. ROBINSON, JR. and
MIRIAM ROBINSON,
                    APPELLANTS,

V.

HEATHER RENEE ROBINSON,
                    APPELLEE,



95-763



APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
SMITH DISTRICT, CIV 91-869, 
HON. FLOYD G. ROGERS, JUDGE,





REVERSED AND DISMISSED IN PART;
REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.

                   Donald L. Corbin, Justice.

     After a jury trial in the Sebastian County Circuit Court,
appellants, Harry G. Robinson, Jr., and his spouse, Miriam
Robinson, appeal the judgment in favor of their adult daughter,
appellee, Heather Renee Robinson, in her suit against Mr. Robinson
for willful, intentional and malicious acts of sexual abuse
committed against appellee during her minority, and against Mrs.
Robinson for negligence in failing to prevent the abuse. 
Jurisdiction is properly in this court pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
1-2(a)(16).  For the reasons stated below, we reverse the judgment
against Mr. Robinson and remand for retrial, and we reverse and
dismiss the action against Mrs. Robinson.  
           Reversal of judgment against Mrs. Robinson  
     Relying upon Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230,