Arkansas Motor Coaches Limited v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 12 March 1962
• Docket Number: Nos. 2613,2623,s. 2613
• Citation: 95 A.L.R.2d 1227,234 Ark. 803,354 S.W.2d 731
• Parties: , 95 A.L.R.2d 1227 ARKANSAS MOTOR COACHES LTD., Inc., Petitioner, v. Hon. Elmo TAYLOR, Judge, Respondent. Minnie WARREN, Petitioner, v. Hon. Elmo TAYLOR, Judge, Respondent.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 731

354 S.W.2d 731

234 Ark. 803, 95 A.L.R.2d 1227

ARKANSAS MOTOR COACHES LTD., Inc., Petitioner, v. Hon. Elmo TAYLOR, Judge, Respondent.

Minnie WARREN, Petitioner, v. Hon. Elmo TAYLOR, Judge, Respondent.

Nos. 2613, 2623.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 12, 1962.

Warren & Bullion, Little Rock, Fletcher Long, Forrest City, for petitioner.

Harold Sharpe, Forrest City, for respondent.

HARRIS, Chief Justice.

Minnie Warren filed an action against Arkansas Motor Coaches in the Circuit Court of St. Francis County, seeking to recover monetary damages for personal injuries suffered because of the alleged negligence of the bus company's driver. Sixteen interrogatories were addressed to Arkansas Motor Coaches. ¹ The company answered the first five interrogatories, objected to numbers six through twelve, then proceeded to answer the balance. A motion was then filed by counsel for Minnie Warren asking that the company be ordered and directed to answer the interrogatories which they had refused to answer. On hearing, the court sustained the defendant's objection to interrogatories #7, #8, #9, #11 and #12, but defendant's objection to plaintiff's interrogatory #10 was overruled 'to the extent that Defendant should be required to furnish to the Plaintiff copies of statements obtained from witnesses, including the parties, now in Defendant's possession.' Arkansas Motor Coaches has petitioned this Court for a Writ of Prohibition, maintaining that the order of the court directing that statements obtained by petitioner be furnished Minnie Warren exceeds the power and jurisdiction of the Court; that the order will have to be complied with unless this Court intervenes by issuance of Writ of Prohibition, and that to comply with said order will cause irreparable injury and damage to petitioner, which cannot be corrected as a practical matter on appeal.

Minnie Warren likewise seeks a Writ of Prohibition, stating:

'Petitioner alleges that the issuance of a Writ of Prohibition in this case is proper because the Circuit Court has exceeded its authority in failing to require Arkansas Motor Coaches, Defendant in said Circuit Court to respond to Interrogatories No. 7, 8 and 9. There is no other remedy that will afford the Petitioner protection against the wrong.'

The cases have been consolidated for hearing.

Actually, both sides are endeavoring to present to this Court for determination the scope and extent of the discovery statutes, Arkansas Statutes, § 28-348 et seq. Petitioner, Arkansas Motor Coaches, states that the petition raises three questions.

'1. Is prohibition the appropriate procedure under the facts in this case;

'2. May the trial court order the witnesses' statements on bare interrogatory; and

'3. To what extent are witnesses' statements, obtained for the purpose of assisting counsel in his preparation for a case, protected from the discovery rules?'

We recognize that the question of the proper utilization of discovery procedures has not been...