Court Opinion

ID: 9762579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:26:42.912157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:35.575142
License: Public Domain

Eddie N. Christian, Special Justice, dissenting. Appellees, Theresa Overholt and Debbie Frye, leased a house in Jacksonville, Arkansas, owned by appellant, Bill Blankenship. Blankenship hired John Finley to make certain repairs, including the laying of tile in the kitchen area of the leased premises. Finley, in the course of removing the old floor surface, utilized gasoline as a glue removal agent. A flash fire ensued and Frye was burned. Overholt’s and Frye’s personal property was also damaged or destroyed. At trial, Blankenship alleged that there was no substantial evidence that Finley was his agent and argued that Finley occupied the status of an independent contractor. As a result, Blankenship made a motion for directed verdict. The motion for directed verdict was denied and, after a jury verdict in favor of the appellees, Blankenship lodged this appeal. The sole issue before the court is whether the trial court was correct in denying Blankenship’s motion for directed verdict. In reviewing a denial of a motion for directed verdict, we give the proof its strongest probative force. Such proof, with all reasonable inferences, is examined in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is sought and if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict, the trial court will be affirmed. Grendell v. Kiehl, 291 Ark. 228, 723 S.W.2d 830 (1987); First Nat’l Bank of Wynne v. Leonard, 289 Ark. 357, 711 S.W.2d 798 (1986). We have held that a determination of whether an agency relationship is established doesn’t depend on whether the agent is actually directed, but instead on whether authorization and the right to control exist. Alpha Zeta Chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity v. Sullivan, 293 Ark. 576, 740 S.W.2d 127 (1987); Evans v. White, 284 Ark. 376, 682 S.W.2d 733 (1985). In this case, Blankenship retained control over the type of materials used and, in fact, caused a change in the materials on two (2) occasions. Furthermore, he restricted the hours that Finley could work and admitted to visiting the job periodically to check on its progress. More importantly, and by his own admission, Blankenship would have caused Finley to change the work if it had not been satisfactory. After considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellees, we cannot conclude that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. Dissent. Hays, J., joins in this dissent.