Opinion ID: 1512483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bracketed material in AMI 301

Text: Although we reverse and remand this case based on the introduction of the discharge summary, we address the Bensons' argument regarding AMI 301 as it will, in all probability, be an issue facing the trial court in the event of retrial. The Bensons contend that the trial court committed reversible error by giving the bracketed portion of AMI 301. The jury instruction given provides: When I use the word negligence in these instructions, I mean the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of something which a reasonably careful person would not do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence in this case. [To constitute negligence an act must be one from which a reasonably careful person would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act, or to do it in a more careful manner.] The Bensons claim that by giving the bracketed material, the court eroded and lessened the `reasonable care' standard. We disagree, for as Shuler emphasizes, Arkansas law recognizes that the failure to guard against an occurrence that is not reasonable to anticipate is not negligence. Foreseeability is a necessary ingredient of actionable negligence in this state. Dollins v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 252 Ark. 13, 477 S.W.2d 179 (1972); North Little Rock Transp. Co. v. Finkbeiner, 243 Ark. 596, 420 S.W.2d 874 (1967). There is no negligence in not guarding against a danger which there is no reason to anticipate. First Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Pinson, 277 Ark. 424, 642 S.W.2d 301 (1982). There is a duty on the part of one in charge of a dangerous instrumentality to protect against danger if he knew or should have known that the situation was dangerous. Id. In the situation before us, the evidence was disputed as to whether the saltwater tank resting on gravel would create static electricity and if so, whether this was the cause of the explosion. Evidence presented at trial also established that Shuler saltwater tank was no different than those used by other companies in similar situations. Accordingly, foreseeability of the accident was in issue and the bracketed portion of AMI 301 was justified under the circumstances. Since this case is being reversed and remanded, we need not address the Benson's argument that the verdict for Shuler was not supported by substantial evidence. Reversed and remanded. DUDLEY and HAYS, JJ., dissent.