Billings v. Aeropres Corp.
| Decision Date | 09 November 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:06CV01382-WRW.,No. 4:07CV00010-WRW.,4:06CV01382-WRW.,4:07CV00010-WRW. |
| Citation | 522 F.Supp.2d 1121 |
| Parties | Raymond John BILLINGS, Plaintiff v. AEROPRES CORPORATION, Defendants. Kerri Dingman, as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Kirk Dingman, deceased, Plaintiff v. Aeropres Corporation and Aeropres Propane, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
B. Michael Easley, Easley & Houseal, P.A., Forrest City, AR, Donald P. McKenna, Jr., Scott A. Powell, Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham, AL, Jerry Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, Lonoke, AR, John Paul Byrd, Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Richard E. Holiman, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiffs.
Dominick Savaiano, Paul Bozych, Rodd E. Elges, Clausen Miller P.C., Chicago, IL, Jim L. Julian, Jason W. Earley, Chisenhall, Nestrud & Julian, P.A., Little Rock, AR, for Defendant.
Plaintiff John Billings ("Billings") has filed a Motion to Strike Defendant's Notice of Non-party Liability and Motion for a Declaratory Judgement.1 Defendant Aeropres Corporation ("Aeropres") has responded.2
This is a products liability case arising from an explosion and fire which caused personal injury in a work-related accident. Aeropres supplied odorless propane gas to Billings's employer. Billings alleges, among other things, that Aeropres failed to warn of its product's inherent dangers. Aeropres filed notice that the fault of Billings's employer should be considered and apportioned.
Billings asks to strike this notice,3 which was filed under Ark.Code Ann. § 16-55-202, and also asks that this provision be declared unconstitutional.
Aeropres counters that the Arkansas General Assembly abolished joint and several liability because it is in the public's interest to apportion the fault of all individuals and entities — even that of non-parties. Aeropres also argues that Ark.Code Ann. § 16-55-202 is constitutional.
As a result of the accident in this case, Billings received benefits under the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act.4 Employers are immune from tort liability for work-related injuries because expeditious payment of benefits under workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for such injuries.5
Traditionally, fault in Arkansas could not be apportioned to an immune employer6 or to any other non-party.7 This rule was based, in part, on Arkansas's Comparative Fault Act, which provides that a plaintiff's fault may be compared with the fault chargeable to "the party or parties from whom [he] seeks to recover damages."8
The 2003 Arkansas Civil Justice Reform Act ("CJRA")9 abolished joint and several liability:10 "[E]ach defendant shall be liable only for the amount of damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to that defendant's percentage of fault."11 The CJRA also includes the following provision:
In assessing percentages of fault, the fact finder shall consider the fault of all persons or entities who contributed to the alleged injury or death or damage to property, tangible or intangible, regardless of whether the person or entity was or could have been named as a party to the suit.12
Aeropres argues that this provision applies to employers just as it does to other non-parties, and has designated Billings's employer as a non-party responsible for a portion of Billings's damages.
The CJRA sets out a notice procedure requiring a defendant to file notice that identifies any non-party allegedly at fault for the injury, along with a brief statement that describes the basis for alleging fault.13 In this case, Aeropres designated Detco Industries ("Detco"), Terco Incorporated ("Terco"), and David Maddox Elliott ("Elliott") as non-parties whose fault should be apportioned.14 Aeropres's notice alleges that: (1) Detco failed to provide a safe workplace; (2) Elliott negligently maintained and operated the aerosol equipment at the facility; (3) and Terco manufactured faulty equipment.15
Billings objects to weighing the fault of his employer, Detco, or of Elliott, another Detco employee, but concedes that fault may be apportioned to Terco. Billings asserts that Detco and Elliott are immune from civil liability,16 arguing that they are not tortfeasors whose fault can be weighed by a jury. Billings also challenges the constitutionality of the CJRA alleging that (1) it infringes on the fundamental right to trial by jury, which requires a strict-scrutiny standard of review; (2) it fails even the rational-basis test because there is no connection between the purpose of the legislation and apportioning fault to a non-party; and (3) it violates substantive due process because it is fundamentally unfair.
Aeropres counters that, even before the CJRA, defendants were permitted to prove that a plaintiff's damages were caused by a non-party.17 Aeropres argues that an employer's faulty conduct has always been considered in civil cases, when a defendant attempts to place blame for an accident on an absent person or entity, i.e., the "empty chair defense."
With respect to Billings's constitutional challenge, Aeropres responds that: (1) a constitutionally protected right has not been identified; (2) at most, the CJRA is subject to rational-basis review; and (3) apportioning fault to a non-party passes the rational basis test.
If a statute does not affect a fundamental right, its constitutionality will be upheld as long as it bears a rational connection to some legitimate government purpose.18 Under this test, the burden is on the party challenging the statute, and the challenger must show that the statute is arbitrary and irrational.19 The Arkansas Supreme Court also applies the rational-basis test and will uphold a statute if it is not the product of capricious government action.20
A statute that infringes on a fundamental constitutional right is subject to strict scrutiny.21 Under strict scrutiny, a statute is valid only if it is "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest."22 The party defending the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of proof under the strict scrutiny test.23
Statutes are construed to be constitutional, when possible.24 Under the canon of constitutional avoidance, every reasonable interpretation must be made in order to save a statute from being declared unconstitutional.25
All statutes on the same subject must be construed together and allowed to stand if they can be reconciled.26 Arkansas law directs that two statutory schemes are to be viewed as a single system, and effect should be given to the general purpose of this system.27 "It is blackletter law for statutory construction to give effect to the specific statute over the general."28
Applying the standards of review and the rules of construction set out above, and for reasons more fully explained below, I find:
(1) the CJRA must be interpreted to pass constitutional muster, if possible;29
(2) the CJRA must be reconciled with the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act and the Arkansas Comparative. Fault Statute;
(3) Detco and Elliott are Arkansas residents and are subject to the jurisdiction of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission;
(4) based on Article III of the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act, this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against an in-state employer (5) without subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court cannot subject Detco and Elliott to compulsory process which is a requirement for a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment;
(6) apportioning fault to an immune non-party employer conflicts with the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to service of process, notice, cross claims, and third-party claims;30
(7) interpreting the CJRA to permit a jury to apportion fault to an immune employer would render the statute unconstitutional for two reasons: (a) it would violate the doctrine of separation of powers under the Arkansas Constitution; and (b) it would violate a fundamental right to a fair trial under the United States Constitution.
A judicial inquiry investigates, declares, and enforces liabilities as they stand.31 Courts decide the rights of adverse parties on actual issues, and make findings that are concrete, not abstract or speculative.32 This process is governed by rules of procedure and evidence.
Under Arkansas procedure, opposing parties are compelled to come to court to present and settle competing claims for relief. Plaintiffs' claims are initiated by filing a complaint and by serving the complaint in accordance with a process set out in Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 5 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure governs the process of filing all other motions and claims stemming from the original cause of action.
Under Rule 14 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, third-party claims are effected by following the procedure set out in Rule 4, and Rule 5 requirements govern notice of a cross claim.33 Under these rules, there must be grounds for liability before a defendant can make a cross claim or third-party claim. Rule 14 provides that "a defendant party, as a third-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him...."34 The rules on cross claims and third-party claims ensure that all parties with an interest in the outcome of a lawsuit are given notice and an opportunity to appear and present evidence.35
The Arkansas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Special Task Force on Practice & Procedure in Civil Cases
...settled is unconstitutional unless that person or entity is made a party. For this proposition, they relied on Billings v. Aeropres Corp., 522 F. Supp.2d 1121 (E.D. Ark. 2007). In Billings, Judge Wilson held, under strict-scrutiny review, that apportioning fault to an immune nonparty employ......
-
Mitchell v. Hood
...jurisdiction." United States Catholic Conf. v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 76 (1988); Billings v. Aeropres Corp., 522 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1130 (E.D. Ark. 2007) ("If a court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, it cannot issue subpoenas, even to non-party witnesses."......
-
In re Special Task Force On Practice
...federal constitution, and a federal court opinion already casts doubt upon the constitutionality of the rules. Billings v. Aeropres Corp., 522 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (E.D. Ark. 2007). We should not adopt rules that cast further doubt on the fairness of our rulemaking. This court, guided by preced......