Court Opinion

ID: 9665325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:45:05.76961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:14.726327
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, concurring. The original complaint in this case sounded entirely in tort. The original answer and third party complaint sounded more in tort than in contract. Most of the allegations by the contractor against the subcontractor were allegations of negligence in the failure to furnish a safe place to work or that the subcontractor was negligent in such a manner as to proximately cause the injuries to its employee, Steve Faulkner, the original plaintiff. Faulkner did not assert a claim against his employer, Ceco (the subcontractor), and the appellants never sought compensation for their liability in tort to the injured Ceco employee. Ceco has no tort liability to the employee or to appellants. Tort liability arising out of workers’ compensation injuries between the employer and third parties has been extinguished. W.M. Bashlin Co. v. Smith, 277 Ark. 406, 643 S.W.2d 526 (1982). The appellants are arguing they are entitled to recover on a written indemnity agreement. This action is based upon contract, not tort. I believe the best procedure is to allow the tort action to be tried without including the contractual matter. I do not fully comprehend the majority opinion affirming this case and stating it is best to have both contract and tort tied together. It appears to me the logic of the majority opinion points to separate trials in spite of the statement about trying both at the same time. Adkisson, C.J., joins in this concurrence.