Court Opinion

ID: 9775001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:40:36.165013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:18.859690
License: Public Domain

Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice, dissenting. The petitioner, American Totalisator Co., Inc. (Amtote), submits its petition for rehearing on the basis that this court should reconsider its analysis of the decisions of courts in other jurisdictions. Amtote makes two assertions: 1) the other courts relied on statutes or rules and regulations virtually identical to those in effect in Arkansas, and 2) the plaintiff in every one of the five cited cases attempted to recover on a negligence theory, as well as a contract theory, and the negligence claim was rejected in each case. Arkansas Sup. Ct. R. 20(g) states as follows: The petition for rehearing should be used to call attention to specific errors of law or fact which the opinion is thought to contain. Counsel are expected to argue the case fully in the original briefs, and the brief on rehearing is not intended to afford an opportunity for a mere repetition of the argument alrady considered by the court. Amtote essentially requests that this court reassess its analysis of the decisions of courts in other jurisdictions. In its opinion of July 15, 1991, this court stated, “The existence of a duty depends upon whether a relation exists between the parties that the community will impose a legal obligation upon one for the benefit of the other. Under our well-established principles of common law duty and the facts before us, we find that a duty existed between the appellees and Mr. Register.” In addressing the parties’ arguments on appeal, this court also noted that “Oaklawn and Amtote’s reliance on cases decided in other jurisdictions is misplaced in that those cases generally had statutes or rules and regulations limiting tort liability or dealt with the contractual theory of liability.” (Emphasis added.) Given the court’s phrasing in finding a duty owed by Amtote to Mr. Register, and analysis of the decisions of other jurisdictions, it is apparent to the dissent that this court addressed Amtote’s extensive appellate arguments. In our previous opinion, we declined to reach Mr. Register’s final argument that his cause of action was not barred by the Arkansas State Racing Commission Rules inasmuch as he had failed to abstract them and noted that Amtote likewise had failed to properly supplement the abstract with the rules. Granted, we were partially wrong in this regard. Amtote, in its original brief, presented Rules 2416 and 2460 (D) of the Arkansas State Racing Commission Rules and Regulations (ed. 1989), covering horse racing in this state, to support its argument that Mr. Register’s cause of action is barred by the Racing Commission rules. Rule 2416 provides as follows: Any claim by a person that a wrong ticket has been delivered to him must be made before leaving the mutuel ticket window. No claim shall be considered thereafter and no claim shall be considered for tickets thrown away, lost, changed, destroyed or mutilated beyond identification. Payment of wagers will be made only on presentation of appropriate pari-mutuel tickets. Rule 2460(D) provides that the Classix pari-mutuel pool shall be handled as follows: (1) The net amount in the Classix pari-mutuel pool will be divided into the Major Share (75%) and the Minor (Consolation) Share (25%). (a) The Major Share (75 %) will be distributed among holders of Classix tickets which correctly designate the official winner in each of the six races comprising the Classix. (b) The Minor Share (25 %) will be distributed among the holders of Classix tickets which correctly designate the most official winners, but fewer than six, of the six races comprising the Classix. In its petition for rehearing, Amtote again provided us with Rules 2416 and 2460(D), noting that it had cited “these rules in its brief, and this court may take judicial notice of rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to statutory authorization and brought to the attention of this court.” Taking judicial notice of Rules 2416 and 2460(D), they may well limit contractual liability; however, they do not restrict tort liability. The fact still remains that under our well-established principles of common law duty and the facts before us, a duty existed between Amtote and Mr. Register. Accordingly, I disagree with the court’s present finding that our statutes and regulations preclude a claim of tort liability of Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc. and Amtote. Consequently, Amtote impermissibly attempts to reargue the interpretation of cases decided in other jurisdictions and does not point out any specific errors of law or fact thought to be contained in this opinion. I respectfully dissent to the granting of the petition for rehearing. Glaze and Corbin, JJ., join in this dissent. 822 S.W.2d 391 SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF SECOND REHEARING FEBRUARY 3, 1992 Per Curiam. Petition for rehearing is denied.