Court Opinion

ID: 9660983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:25:38.064253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:23.908827
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice, dissenting. The jury found the four parties negligent as follows: Glenn 60 per cent. Walton 20 per cent. Brigham JO per cent. Tull 10 per cent. It is my view that regardless of the inter sese relationship between Tull and Walton, nevertheless, as concerns Glenn and Brigham, the negligence of Walton is imputed to Tull.1 With Walton’s negligence imputed to Tull, the above figures become: Glenn 60 per cent. Tull 30 per cent. Brigham 10 per cent. We come then to the application of the Comparative Negligence Statute2 (which is Act 296 of 1957, compiled as §§ 27-1730.1 — 27-1720.2 • Ark. Stats.). When we apply the Comparative Negligence Statute to the last set .of figures detailed above, we find that Tull’s negligence, being 30 per cent., is greater than Brigham’s negligence of 10 per cent.; and it is my view that under the Comparative Negligence Statute Tull cannot recover anything from Brigham. As to Glenn, whose negligence is 60 per cent., Tull has already settled with him out of court for a figure of $9,000.00. It is my view that the Comparative Negligence Statute, being an Act of 1957, modifies and affects the Uniform Tortfeasors’ Contribution Act, which is Act No. 315 of 1941; and in this case results in (1) Brigham being exempt from all liability to Tull; and (2) Glenn being liable for only 30 per cent, of the damages which have already been settled. As between Walton and Tull, there would only be 10 per cent, due by Walton to Tull. These results are because I think the Comparative Negligence Statute modifies and affects the Uniform Tortfeasors’ Contribution Act.   The Lower Court ruled that Walton was, as a matter of law, the agent of Tull. The Majority Opinion so recites.    Section 2 of the Act provides: “In all actions hereafter accruing for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death or injury to property, the contributory negligence shall not prevent a recovery where any negligence of the person so injured, damaged, or killed is of less degree than any negligence of the person, firm or corporation causing such damage; provided that where such contributory negligence is shown on the part of the person injured, damaged or killed, the amount of the recovery shall be diminished in proportion to such contributory negligence.”