 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Titsworth5/18/2005
sed it with appellee or his accountant. Also, appellee was able to cast serious doubt about the method employed by the auditor in testifying that his payroll had included overtime and compensation to workers who lived in Oklahoma.
For these reasons, we affirm the trial judge's finding that appellee was entitled to credits for equipment leases and independent contractors. However, appellant has demonstrated an error in the method that the trial judge used in computing damages. Appellant argues that, even if appellee is entitled to the credits found by the judge, he still owes the company $15,547.26, after the $23,866.15 for equipment leases and the $5529.94 for contract labor are subtracted from the audited payroll figure of $79,152 and the prepaid premium of $9092 is credited against the resulting 49.62% premium of $24,639.26. The judge erred in subtracting the payments for equipment leases and contract labor from the premium due, rather than from the total payroll, and in not subtracting the amount of premiums paid from the total premium due. Therefore, we reverse the trial judge's computation of appellant's damages and remand this aspect of the case so that he can recalculate them in keeping with this decision.
The Submission of Additional Evidence
Appellant argues in its second point that the trial judge abused his discretion in holding the record open to permit appellee to submit additional evidence and contends that, in doing so, the trial judge strayed from his role as an impartial fact finder. Appellant, however, raised no objection to the trial judge's decision to hold the record open; in fact, it expressly consented to that action. An appellant may not complain on appeal that the trial judge erred if he induced, consented to, or acquiesced in the trial judge's decision. Keathley v. Keathley, 76 Ark. App. 150, 61 S.W.3d 219 (2001); Anderson v. Anderson, 60 Ark. App. 221, 963 S.W.2d 604 (1998). We will not review an alleged erroneous action taken by the trial court if the appellant failed to raise his objection and state his grounds therefor to the trial judge. See Daniels v. Cravens, 297 Ark. 388, 761 S.W.2d 942 (1988).
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
Vaught and Baker, JJ., agree.
Page 1 2 3 4 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|