Court Opinion

ID: 9640444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:06:09.076235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:29.797919
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. I agree the appellants’ petition for rehearing should be denied, but I would add that the instruction proffered by the appellants was insufficient and incorrect. In Higgins v. Hines, 289 Ark. 281, 711 S.W.2d 783 (1986), the court set forth the five elements required to constitute the tort of deceit, and in setting out element two, we adopted a rule which requires “knowledge or belief on the part of the defendant that the representation is false or that he has not a sufficient basis of information to make it.'’’’ (Emphasis added.) See also AMI Civil 3d, 405.1 Appellants’ proffered instruction in this cause omitted the foregoing, emphasized language. This omission, in my view, was a vital one, especially when considering the evidence that this court, in pertinent part, reviewed and recited in its majority opinion. Regardless of whether appellants had made a timely objection to the instruction given by the trial court, they simply failed to proffer a correct instruction in its stead — a duty required of them in order to prevail on this point on appeal.   In Grendell v. Kiehl, 291 Ark. 228, 723 S.W.2d 830 (1987), this element was worded as follows: [SJcienter — knowledge by the defendant that the representation was false, or an assertion of fact which he does not know to be true.