Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00567/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00567-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury-Product Liability

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

CHARLES ROBERT PERRY PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 4:05CV567GH

ETHICON, INC.; ET AL. DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for ruling on assessment of fault

against nonparties. Plaintiff seeks to have the Court preclude defendant from using the

“empty chair statute”, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-202 and to find that the statute is

unconstitutional.

Section 16-55-202, which is part of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003, provides:

(a) In assessing percentages of fault, the fact finder shall consider the fault

of all persons or entities who contributed to the alleged injury or death or

damage to property, tangible or intangible, regardless of whether the person

or entity was or could have been named as a party to the suit.

(b)(1) Negligence or fault of a nonparty shall be considered if the plaintiff

entered into a settlement agreement with the nonparty or if the defending

party gives notice that a nonparty was wholly or partially at fault not later

than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the date of trial.

(2) The notice shall be given by filing a pleading in the action designating the

nonparty and setting forth the nonparty's name and last known address, or

the best identification of the nonparty which is possible under the

circumstances, together with a brief statement of the basis for believing the

nonparty to be at fault.

(c)(1) Except as expressly stated in this section, nothing in this section shall

eliminate or diminish any defenses or immunities which currently exist.

(2) Assessments of percentages of fault of nonparties shall be used only for

accurately determining the percentage of fault of named parties.

(3) Where fault is assessed against nonparties, findings of fault shall not

subject any nonparty to liability in any action or be introduced as evidence

Case 4:05-cv-00567-GH Document 144 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 3
1

There is no indication that plaintiff advised Gauger of the November 27th trial. 

-2-

of liability in any action.

The issue of the “empty chair statute” came up at the first trial in May, 2006. At that

time plaintiff argued that defendant should not be allowed to use the provision. The Court

agreed, finding that defendant had not filed a pleading 120 days prior to trial, as required

by the statute, and therefore the request by defendant was untimely. Defendant filed

another pleading on July 19, 2006, giving notice of possible negligence or fault on the part

of Dr. Timothy Langford and Baptist Health Medical Center. 

By letter dated November 17, 2006, to Tim Gauger, plaintiff notified Gauguer that

he was challenging the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-202. Ark. Code Ann.

§ 16-11-106(b) provides that the Attorney General be notified of any action involving a

constitutional challenge. The Arkansas Supreme Court has refused to consider

constitutional claims where the Attorney General has not been notified. See Stephens v.

Stephens, 306 Ark. 59, 63 (1991), Reagan v. City of Piggott, 305 Ark. 77, 81, (1991).

The Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to give sufficient notice to the

Attorney General as required by the statute. The Attorney General of the State of

Arkansas is Mike Beebe, not Tim Gauger. See www.ag.state.ar.us. Beebe was not

provided any notice. Even assuming that service on Tim Gauger suffices, the Court is of

the opinion that the motion and brief is insufficient. Plaintiff is required to serve a copy of

the proceedings. The Attorney General was not served with a copy of the complaint.

Furthermore, the attorney general is entitled to be heard on the issue. See Roberts v.

Watts, 263 Ark. 822, 826 (1978). Service of the notice of the challenge ten days prior to

trial does not give the attorney general adequate time to be heard.1

Because plaintiff has failed to give notice to the Attorney General as required by

Arkansas law, the Court will not address the constitutionality of the statute. 

Accordingly, the motion for ruling on assessment of fault is denied. 

Case 4:05-cv-00567-GH Document 144 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 3
-3-

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of November, 2006.

_______________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-00567-GH Document 144 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 3