Opinion ID: 6110946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Submission of Charitable-Immunity Issue to the Jury

Text: DLCC contends that the issue of charitable immunity is a question of law for the court, rather than the jury, to decide. Accordingly, DLCC contends that the circuit court erred in submitting the issue of charitable immunity to the jury. Neal responds that the circuit court properly submitted the issue of charitable immunity to the jury because there are disputed facts concerning DLCC's charitable status. In Anglin v. Johnson Regional Medical Center , 375 Ark. 10 , 289 S.W.3d 28 (2008), this court reviewed an order of summary judgment granted in favor of a hospital on the basis that it was entitled to charitable immunity. The appellant contended that the issue whether a hospital is entitled to a defense of charitable immunity is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Therefore, he contended that he was unconstitutionally denied his right to a jury trial when the circuit court determined, as a matter of law, that the hospital was a charity entitled to immunity. In addressing the appellant's argument, we stated the following principles related to charitable immunity: When there are no disputed facts regarding a defendant's charitable status, the determination of charitable status is a question of law for the court. Anglin , 375 Ark. at 21 , 289 S.W.3d at 35 . Disputed facts concerning an organization's charitable status may be presented to a jury. See id. , 289 S.W.3d at 35 (citing Crossett Health Ctr. v. Croswell , 221 Ark. 874 , 256 S.W.2d 548 (1953) ). In some cases, [w]hile there may be fact issues involved, they are not matters of disputed fact. Rather, they are differing legal interpretations of undisputed facts. Id. , 289 S.W.3d at 35 (quoting George , 337 Ark. at 212-13 , 987 S.W.2d at 713 ). In such cases, the circuit court should grant summary judgment where reasonable persons would not reach different conclusions based upon those undisputed facts. Id. , 289 S.W.3d at 35 . After considering the Masterson factors and the evidence presented, we concluded that because no disputed facts existed, the appellant was not entitled to a jury trial. Anglin , 375 Ark. at 22 , 289 S.W.3d at 36 (noting that the issues regarding the hospital's profit and its practice of filing suit to collect unpaid medical bills involved differing legal interpretations of undisputed facts). Accordingly, we held that the circuit court correctly determined, as a matter of law, that the hospital was entitled to charitable immunity. Id. , 289 S.W.3d at 36 . With this background, we return to the facts in the instant case. In 2015, the court of appeals held that the circuit court erred in determining on summary judgment that DLCC was immune from suit. Neal , 2015 Ark. App. 478 , 470 S.W.3d 281 . Specifically, the court of appeals identified facts that needed further development and concluded that reasonable persons could reach different conclusions based on the undisputed facts presented. On remand, the circuit court submitted the charitable-immunity  question to the jury. We hold that the circuit court erred in doing so. The ultimate question of charitable immunity is a matter of law for the court to decide. See Anglin , 375 Ark. 10 , 289 S.W.3d 28 . We reverse and remand for the circuit court to hear evidence and determine whether DLCC is entitled to charitable immunity. If the existence of charitable immunity turns on disputed factual issues, then the jury may determine the facts, and the circuit court will subsequently determine whether those facts are sufficient to establish charitable immunity. 2 Based on the foregoing, we need not consider DLCC's remaining contentions. Reversed and remanded; court of appeals opinion vacated. Wood, J., concurs. Baker, Hart, and Wynne, JJ., dissent.