Court Opinion

ID: 9652919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:35:13.850922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:55.153980
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part. I agree that the judgment for compensatory damages should be affirmed in this case. I dissent to reversing the punitive damages award. In my judgment the most difficult legal issue in this case is the application of Arkansas’s strict liability statute. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 85-2-318.2 (Supp. 1979). This law was passed in 1973. The machine in question, a grain buggy, was built in 1956. The accident occurred after the statute was enacted. The majority has skirted some previous cases of ours which say that Arkansas’ strict liability statute is a new cause of action. See General Motors v. Tate, 257 Ark. 347, 516 S.W. 2d 602 (1974). It is my judgment that the language in the Tate case and other cases that say strict liability is a new cause of action is wrong. The strict liability statute simply changes the burden of proof. The statute does not make a manufacturer liable for conduct that it would not have been liable for before the statute. It simply provides that a plaintiff only has to show a defect in the manufacture of a product rather than show the manufacturer was negligent. In such cases it is virtually impossible to show negligence. The statute simply shifts the burden of proof; the statute is therefore purely remedial and creates no new cause of action. It is a fundamental rule of law that statutes relating only to remedies or modes of procedure are generally held to operate retrospectively. Hardman v. Personnel Appeal Board, 100R. I. 145, 211 A. 2d 660 (1965). A statute or amendment which furnishes a new remedy, but does not impair or affect any contractual obligations or disturb any vested rights, is applicable to acts done prior to its passage if the proceedings are begun after the act is passed. Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc., 260 Iowa 556, 149 N.W. 2d 789 (1967). The grain buggy was without question negligently designed. A ladder was built directly over the drive shaft that turned a screw in the bottom of the buggy. The drive shaft was designed to be attached to a power take-off on a tractor. Anyone familiar with farm equipment knows that it is sometimes necessary to get off a tractor while the power take-off is operating. It is not smart, but it is done. By placing a ladder over the power take-off, without any guard whatsoever, it is inevitable that someone would climb that ladder and hurt himself. A power take-off is one of the most dangerous instruments on a tractor. At the time this grain buggy was manufactured it was not customary to completely cover the power take-off shaft although many manufactured products did provide some kind of guard. The evidence did demonstrate, however, that most manufacturers of such buggies placed some sort of shield or step below the ladder to protect anyone who climbed the ladder. There was nothing on this grain buggy and it was inevitable that someone would mount the ladder or dismount the ladder and get caught in the power take-off. In this case it was a small child. This negligence, in my judgment, amounted to gross negligence and a reckless disregard for the user’s safety. Therefore, I would not reverse the award of punitive damages but only reduce it to the amount that the plaintiff asked for which is $ 150,000.00. The trail judge remarked after the jury returned a verdict for $500,000.00 that the appellate court would reduce it to the amount prayed for. The majority finds that there is no substantial evidence to support punitive damages. I find at least two instances of substantial evidence. The first is the design of the machine itself and the failure to provide a guard or step; the second is the fact the manufacturer had received notice that at least two lawsuits had been filed for injuries occurring as a result of the design of this machinery and the fact that the manufacturer made no effort to correct the defect in the design or to notify any of the purchasers of the grain buggy of the possible danger. To me these acts reflect a reckless disregard for the safety of others from which malice may be inferred. Hays, J., joins in this concurring opinion and dissent.