Court Opinion

ID: 9772616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:23:55.915875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:24.568948
License: Public Domain

Donald L. Corbin, Justice, dissenting. I dissent. The case should have been submitted to the jury for decision. The facts of the appellee’s drinking mixed with a collision with another vehicle he did not know he hit and his collision with a traffic light pole should have been submitted to the jury to resolve whether he was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. One does not have to be intoxicated under a legal definition of 0.10% before having his mental and reaction time slowed down by the drink. See Stephens v. State, 320 Ark. 426, 898 S.W.2d 435 (1995). When all of this is coupled with rain slicked streets, it would be a proper issue for a jury to draw upon their individual experiences to determine if, under all of these conditions, negligence existed. I would reverse and remand for trial. Glaze, J., joins in this dissent.