Opinion ID: 1673907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to submit limiting instruction

Text: Appellants' second issue on appeal challenges the trial court's refusal to submit a curative instruction to the jury cautioning it to disregard any evidence of Rodgers's failure to wear a hard hat as evidence of comparative fault. Notably, a review of the record demonstrates that appellee failed to present any evidence that the hard hat would have made any difference in diminishing appellant's spinal injuries. In fact, the trial court expressly acknowledged that there was no evidence that the hard hat would have prevented any spinal injury. In contrast to what appellee predicted, Dr. Yates testified within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a hard hat would not have made a significant, or even small, difference with regard to Rodgers's injuries. Indeed, the only evidence that the hard hat would have made any difference was with respect to appellant's laceration. However, the trial court denied appellants' motion to offer the jury one of two limiting instructions. The first proffered instruction cautioned the jury to disregard Rodgers's failure to wear a hard hat [w]hen determining whether any negligence on the part of Carl Rodgers was a proximate cause for any damages. The second instruction stated that the jury could consider the evidence only with regard to the issue of what damages, if any, Carl Rodgers is entitled to for the laceration to his head. Appellants correctly argue that appellee bears the burden of proof for establishing its affirmative defense of comparative fault. See Baumgartner v. Rogers, 233 Ark. 387, 345 S.W.2d 476 (1961); Skinner v. R.J. Griffin & Co., 313 Ark. 430, 855 S.W.2d 913 (1993). Appellee must prove that Rodgers's failure to wear a hard hat was a proximate cause of any of his injuries, and we require the jury to base its decision upon proof, not mere speculation or conjecture. See Cates v. Brown, 278 Ark. 242, 247, 645 S.W.2d 658, 661 (1983). At best, appellee offered evidence that the hard hat may have made some difference with respect to the laceration injury. Other evidence indicated that a hard hat was required on the job site. Although the proof offered at trial may have warranted a limiting instruction, we cannot say that the trial court erred by refusing to submit either of the two proffered instructions. The first instruction is not supported by the evidence presented at trial, and the second contains an improper comment upon the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court on this point.