Opinion ID: 2379028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: evidence of rathbun's driver's license

Text: Rathbun contends the trial court abused its discretion in allowing opposing counsel to question defendant Rathbun regarding how long she had held a driver's license. On redirect, Rathbun was asked: You had gotten your regular driver's license when, Ms. Rathbun? At trial, she objected on grounds of relevance. On appeal, Rathbun argues additionally that A.R.E. Rule 404 prohibits introduction of character traits into evidence in civil cases unless that trait is in issue or it is being offered to reflect upon the veracity of the witness, citing Brown v. Conway, 300 Ark. 567, 781 S.W.2d 12 (1989). We observe that Rule 404 is not applicable here, as the question had nothing to do with either the good or bad character of Rathbun. However, we do not address the merits of this latter argument as it is raised for the first time on appeal. Reynolds v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 313 Ark. 145, 852 S.W.2d 799 (1993). Evidence relating to the driving skill and experience of a party is relevant in determining whether that party acted negligently. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the testimony of the length of time Rathbun had been licensed to drive.