Court Opinion

ID: 9682584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:14:25.641398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.266861
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice, dissenting. In the trial court a joint and several judgment was entered in favor of Earl Pike against both Burks Motors Inc. and International Harvester Company. In addition, a judgment in favor of Burks and against International Harvester was entered on Burks Motors Inc.’s request for contribution —it being there determined that for purposes of contribution Burks Motors Inc. was liable for only 9% of the joint and several judgment. These matters were entered in one instrument dated May 7, 1970. International Harvester filed notice of appeal, designated both Pike and Burks Motors as appellees and in cause no. 5-5427 (International Harvester Company v. Pike, opinion delivered Feb. 15, 1971) we held that, for the errors committed, International Harvester was entitled to a new trial on all issues. This of course did not affect the joint and several judgment that Pike had against Burks Motors. See A. S. Barboro & Co. v. James, 205 Ark. 53, 168 S. W. 2d 202 (1943). However, since Burks Motors’ judgment over against International Harvester was already set aside by our Feb. 15, 1971 decision, it is my conclusion that we decided nothing in cause no. 5-5425 when we, on March 1, 1971, said that Burks was not entitled to have its responsibility reduced to 0.9%. If on the other hand our decision in cause no. 5-5425 (Burks Motors, Inc. v. International Harvester Company, March 1, 1971) did decide that International was liable over to Burks for 91% of the total judgment, then I am at a loss to understand what International accomplished when it obtained a new trial in cause no. 5-5427. For the reasons herein stated and to avoid the confusion expressed by the parties, I would declare that the joint tort contribution issues between Burks and International in cause no. 5-5425 became moot with the new trial granted International Harvester in cause no. 5-5427 and that that issue stood for trial anew. The parties by their petitions for clarification have expressed their confusion from the two decisions and I have attempted to show mine. How the trial court may read them one can only speculate. Unless we resolve the confusion, it is possible that we have created more controversy than we have solved. Harris, C. J., and Holt J., join in this dissent.