Court Opinion

ID: 9776225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:28:03.845806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:36.119488
License: Public Domain

Webb Hubbell, Chief Justice, dissenting. The majority finds that there was no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s giving of the assumption of the risk instruction, AMI 612. I respectfully disagree. Rogers testified that he knew that crossing in the middle of the street was dangerous and unsafe. The majority asserts that knowledge of a general danger is not sufficient, that one assumes the risk only of known specific perils. What could be more specific? If you jaywalk across a dangerous and busy street, you are likely to get run over or clipped. We warn our children of this specific risk. The danger was open and obvious, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the instruction. Baxter v. Grobmyer Brothers Construction Co., 275 Ark. 400, 651 S.W.2d 265 (1982). What is really troubling the majority is the use of the word “defense” in AMI 612, in conjunction with the basic comparative negligence instruction — AMI 2102. However, appellant did not make a specific objection to the word “defense” in AMI 612; nor did he object to the use of AMI 2102, as opposed to AMI 2115. Ark. R. Civ. P. 51. I would affirm. Hickman and Purtle, JJ., join in this dissent.