Opinion ID: 2462797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Duty of a Fiduciary

Text: The Longs next assert that the trial court erred by incorrectly instructing the jury that they had the burden of proving that Lampton owed them a duty as a fiduciary. The trial court instructed the jury that the Longs had the burden of proof as to each of the following four essential propositions: First: That they have sustained damages. Second: That Leslie B. Lampton, Sr., owed plaintiffs duties as a fiduciary. Third: That Leslie B. Lampton, Sr., breached his fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs. Fourth: That such breach of fiduciary duties was a proximate cause of plaintiffs' damages. We agree that it was error to instruct the jury that the Longs had the burden of proving that Lampton owed them a duty as a fiduciary. This court has repeatedly stated the issue of what duty is owed, if any, is always a question of law. First Commercial Trust Co. v. Lorcin Eng'g., 321 Ark. 210, 900 S.W.2d 202 (1995). Further, it is the duty of the judge to instruct the jury and each party to the proceeding has the right to have the jury instructed upon the law of the case with clarity and in such a manner as to leave no grounds for misrepresentation or mistake. Dorton v. Francisco, 309 Ark. 472, 833 S.W.2d 362 (1992). An erroneous instruction which is likely to mislead the jury is prejudicial. Bailey v. Rose Care Center, 307 Ark. 14, 817 S.W.2d 412 (1991). However, we have also held that although we will presume prejudice from the giving of an erroneous instruction, the error may be rendered harmless by other factors in the case. Davis v. Davis, 313 Ark. 549, 856 S.W.2d 284 (1993); Skinner v. R.J. Griffin & Co., 313 Ark. 430, 855 S.W.2d 913 (1993). During the trial, Lampton testified that I recognize that I had a duty as a shareholder and a director to Mr. Long is another shareholder. I recognize that I have a duty to treat all of the shareholders fairly and equally in this situation. Lampton also testified that [a]ll parties have a fiduciary duty, including a duty of fairness and loyalty and not taking advantage of the other. Lampton's counsel also admitted the existence of such a duty in his closing argument: We do not deny that Mr. Lampton had a duty. He had a duty to the other shareholders, to the other directors, to his corporation as a company, including all of its employees.... So, we do not deny that element. We will concede, and do not dispute that a duty existed. Finally, the following instruction was given immediately after the charge which erroneously advised that the Longs had the burden of proving that Lampton owed them a duty: Directors, officers and shareholders of a corporation owe fiduciary duties of care, good faith and loyalty to each other. In St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Grider, 321 Ark. 84, 900 S.W.2d 530 (1995), this court stated that jury instructions should not be reviewed in isolation, but rather considered as a whole in determining whether the applicable law has been given to the jury. In the present case, the testimony of Lampton and the statements of his counsel, along with the instruction which advised the jury of the fiduciary duty owed by directors, officers, and shareholders of a corporation rendered harmless the erroneous instruction.