Court Opinion

ID: 9771063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:30:06.695498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:24.159241
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. I agree with reversal and remand in this case but see no reason to remand for a full-blown trial on liability as well as damages. That clearly flies in the face of judicial economy. My preference is for a remand solely for the purpose of determining damages, since error in assessing damages is the basis for the reversal. As the majority opinion points out, our cases are divided on this issue. But our rules clearly and unambiguously permit a new trial on a segmented issue such as damages. Ark. R. Civ. P. 59(a). Rule 59(a) is ample authority to conduct a trial on damages only and to the extent our cases have disallowed this in the past, I would overrule them. Moreover, the majority opinion does not address clearly the issue of odometer alterations on fourteen other trucks and using this proof as evidence of intent to defraud in a new trial on liability. It should be admissible. The majority simply says that since intent was shown in the first trial, no prejudice accrued to Smith because he prevailed. But what about retrial on the liability issue? Can it be used then? The majority opinion gives no direction on this point.