 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Campbell v. Entergy Arkansas6/30/2005
In this case, we granted a petition for review from a decision by the Arkansas Court of Appeals that reversed a jury's verdict in favor of Appellee Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Campbell v. Entergy Arkansas, Inc., --- Ark. App. ---, --- S.W.3d --- (Dec. 15, 2004). The matter arises out of a lawsuit filed by Appellant Wendell Campbell against Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (Entergy) seeking damages for injuries he sustained from an electric shock that occurred when he came into contact with an Entergy guy wire. As there has been no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in this case, a long recitation of the facts is not necessary. On August 15, 2001, Mr. Campbell came into contact with an Entergy guy wire while doing yard work at his residence and suffered an electrical shock. Mr. Campbell alleged in his complaint that his injuries were the result of Entergy's negligent construction and maintenance of the electrical wire. In its answer, Entergy denied fault for Mr. Campbell's injuries and asserted that his injuries were proximately caused by his own conduct.
The case was tried before a jury and, following instructions by the circuit court and closing arguments by counsel, the court submitted the case to the jury on a general verdict. The jury then retired to deliberate. After deliberating approximately two and one-half hours, the jury informed the circuit court that it was unable to reach a verdict. As a result of this disclosure, the circuit court instructed the jury in accordance with AMI-Civ.4th 2303, commonly known as the "dynamite" instruction, and the jury again retired to deliberate. Eventually, the jury sent a note to the circuit court that asked the following question: "What verdict form do we use for a fifty-fifty verdict?" The court conferred with counsel and sent a written response: "The Court needs clarification. Is the question that you are deadlocked 50% to 50%, or 6 to 6, or have you determined that both the plaintiff and defendant are each 50% responsible for the accident?" The jury promptly returned the note, indicating, "This is our position" with a circle drawn around the second half of the note. The court responded by referring the jury to the AMI instruction on comparative fault, AMI- Civ.4th 2101, but the jury returned an additional note stating, "The way these forms are typed, there is no way to compare percentages." The court then responded with a note saying, "You are not required to assess percentages of negligence on the verdict form itself, but to use those percentages you reached to choose the correct verdict according to 2101." After a third and final question from the jury, the court decided, over the objection of Mr. Campbell's counsel, to resubmit the case to the jury on special-interrogatory verdict forms pursuant to AMI- Civ.4th 2302. The jury ultimately returned answers to the special interrogatories, finding that each party was fifty percent responsible for the accident. The circuit court then entered judgment in favor of Entergy based upon the jury's special-interrogatory verdict.
Mr. Campbell appeals that verdict, arguing that the circuit court erred when it submitted the issue of comparative fault to the jury by special interrogatories without affording him the opportunity to argue the effect of answers to those interrogatories as provided by Ark. Code Ann. ยง 16-64-122(d)(Supp. 2003). The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the verdict, and Entergy filed a petition for review, which we granted pursuant to Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 1-2(e)(2005). We agree that the procedure used by the circuit court violated section 16-64-122(d). Therefore, we reverse and remand.
Mr. Campbell's sole argument on appeal is that the circuit court erred when it modified the instructi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|