Court Opinion

ID: 9681081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:43:36.435794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.135971
License: Public Domain

Bn. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice (concurring and dissenting). I agree thoroughly with that portion of the Majority Opinion which holds that the entire case should he fully developed on damages before we are asked to review any part of it. When the equity trial court finds that the plaintiff has not made a case on liability, then the complaint may be dismissed without offering the evidence as to damages. This is because of our statute on demurrer to the evidence (Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1729 [Repl. 1962]). But when, as here, the Trial Court has found that there is liability, the parties have no right to delay completion of the trial in order to get the Supreme Court to pass on that question before completing the evidence in the Trial Court as to damages. Piecemeal trial is to be avoided as much as possible;-so I agree with that portion of the Majority Opinion regarding completion of the trial below, since the Highway Department is liable for some damages in this case. My dissent goes to that part of the Majority Opinion which limits the elements of recoverable damage. My views on this angle of the case are contained in my dissent in Ark. State Highway Comm. v. McNeill, 238 Ark. 244, and there is no need for me to restate these views in this dissent.' I again dissent in order to preserve such views as I stated in the McNeill case.