Ethyl Corp. v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 09 July 2001
• Docket Number: 00-1378
• Citation: 49 S.W.3d 644
• Parties: ETHYL CORPORATION AND ALBEMARLE CORPORATION, APPELLANTS; VS. LARRY JOHNSON AND NANCY JOHNSON, APPELLEES.SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS 9 July 2001 APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND DIVISION, NO. CIV 96-90-2; HON. DAVID F. GUTHRIE, JUDGE; REVERSED AND DISMISSED. DONALD L. CORBIN, Associate Justice Appellee Larry Johnson was injured when part of a metal trash container fell on his foot. At the time of his injury, Johnson was on the premises of a chemical plant owned by Appellant Ethyl Corporation and run by its subsidiary, Appellant Albemarle Corporation. As a result of his injury, Johnson filed suit in the Ouachita County Circuit Court, alleging that Appellants' negligence caused his injury.(FN1) A jury found in favor of Johnson and awarded him damages of $165,851.50. We conclude that there was not substantial evidence of negligence to support the verdict, and we reverse. The record reflects that Johnson and his wife, Nancy, were over-the-road truck drivers employed by the Jack B. Kelly Company. On
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

ETHYL CORPORATION AND ALBEMARLE CORPORATION, APPELLANTS VS LARRY JOHNSON AND NANCY JOHNSON, APPELLEES

No. 00-1378

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

9 July 2001

APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND DIVISION, NO. CIV 96-90-2; HON. DAVID F. GUTHRIE, JUDGE; REVERSED AND DISMISSED.

DONALD L. CORBIN, Associate Justice

Appellee Larry Johnson was injured when part of a metal trash container fell on his foot. At the time of his injury, Johnson was on the premises of a chemical plant owned by Appellant Ethyl Corporation and run by its subsidiary, Appellant Albemarle Corporation. As a result of his injury, Johnson filed suit in the Ouachita County Circuit Court, alleging that Appellants' negligence caused his injury.(FN1) A jury found in favor of Johnson and awarded him damages of $165,851.50. We conclude that there was not substantial evidence of negligence to support the verdict, and we reverse.

The record reflects that Johnson and his wife, Nancy, were over-the-road truck drivers employed by the Jack B. Kelly Company. On May 10, 1993, around 6:30 a.m., the Johnsons took their tanker truck to Appellants' facility in Magnolia to be loaded with hydrobromic acid. The Johnsons had been to Appellants' facility numerous times in the past. On this occasion, Nancy was driving the truck, while Larry stayed in the bunk of the cab. It took approximately forty-five minutes to an hour to load the tanker that morning. Once loaded, Nancy proceeded to drive the truck out of the loading dock and back to the scales, so that the load could be weighed before beginning their trip. Instead of taking the ordinary route back to the scales, however, Nancy chose an alternate route that took the truck into the parking lot of the plant's maintenance shop. Nancy intended to make a U-turn in the parking lot and proceed onto the main roadway back to the scales. While attempting the turn, Nancy realized that the rear wheels of the trailer were not going to clear a metal trash container that was situated at the edge of the parking lot, adjacent to a rack of pipe lines. The container is not what is ordinarily thought of as a trash container or dumpster. It is a three-sided object that holds two separate trash bins. The container weighs 2,180 pounds and is stationary, i.e., it does not have wheels or rollers. The two bins that fit inside the container are kept inside the maintenance shop until they require emptying. They are then loaded into the metal container, and the container is picked up by a special truck and emptied. The container is designed so that the bottom will collapse or open when it is being emptied, thus allowing the trash to fall out.

On the date in question, Larry Johnson decided to attempt to move the container out of the truck's path. He initially attempted to push the container by leaning into it with his shoulder. He felt it move a short distance, but not enough for the trailer to clear. He then went around to the front of the container and began to jerk on its handle, like a weight lifter jerks to lift heavy weights. Johnson continued to jerk on the handle until part of the container collapsed and fell on his foot. Appellants' emergency medical team came to Johnson's assistance and subsequently transported him to the Magnolia City Hospital.

Appellants moved for a directed verdict at the end of Johnson's case and again at the close of all the evidence. They argued that Johnson's injury was not foreseeable and that they had no duty to guard against an occurrence that was not foreseeable. The trial court denied the motion, and the case was submitted to the jury on the theories of negligence and premises liability. The jury was also instructed on the theory of comparative fault, as Appellants claimed that Johnson's damages were proximately caused by his own negligence. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Johnson. Following the verdict, Appellants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), again arguing that there was insufficient proof of foreseeability. The trial court denied the posttrial motion, and this appeal followed.

Our standard of review of the denial of a motion for directed verdict is whether the jury's verdict is supported by substantial evidence. City of Caddo Valley v. George, 340 Ark. 203, 9 S.W.3d 481 (2000). Similarly, in reviewing the denial of a motion for JNOV, we will reverse only if there is no substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Conagra, Inc. v. Strother, 340 Ark. 672, 13 S.W.3d 150 (2000). Substantial evidence is that which goes beyond suspicion or conjecture and is sufficient to compel a conclusion one way or the other. Caddo Valley, 340 Ark. 203, 9 S.W.3d 481. It is not this court's place to try issues of fact; rather, this court simply reviews the record for substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. Id. In determining whether there is substantial evidence, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the party on whose behalf judgment was entered. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swaim, 338 Ark. 49, 991 S.W.2d 555 (1999); Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Sharp, 330 Ark. 174, 952 S.W.2d 658 (1997).

Appellants argue that there was insufficient evidence of negligence. Particularly, they assert that they were not negligent because they had no duty to guard against the unforeseen harm that Johnson suffered. Negligence is defined as the failure to do something that a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of something that a reasonably careful person would not do, under the circumstances. New Maumelle Harbor v. Rochelle, 338 Ark. 43, 991 S.W.2d 552 (1999); Wallace v. Broyles, 331 Ark. 58, 961 S.W.2d 712 (1998). "To constitute negligence, an act must be one from which a reasonably careful person would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act, or to do it in a more careful manner." Id. at 67, 961 S.W.2d at 715 (citing AMI Civ. 3d 301). Foreseeability is thus a necessary ingredient of actionable negligence in this state. Benson v. Shuler Drilling Co., Inc., 316 Ark. 101, 871 S.W.2d 552 (1994); First Electric Coop. Corp. v. Pinson, 277 Ark. 424, 642 S.W.2d 301 (1982); Dollins v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 252 Ark. 13, 477 S.W.2d 179 (1972). "Conduct becomes negligent only as it gives rise to appreciable risk of injury to others, and there is no negligence in not guarding against a danger which there is no reason to anticipate." Id. at 18, 477 S.W.2d at 183 (citing North Little Rock Transp. Co. v. Finkbeiner, 243 Ark. 596, 420 S.W.2d 874 (1967)). In other words, "negligence cannot be predicated on a failure to anticipate the unforeseen." Keck v. American Employment Agency, Inc., 279 Ark. 294, 299, 652 S.W.2d 2, 5 (1983).

Arkansas law has long since recognized that there is no duty to guard against merely possible, as opposed to likely or probable, harm. In St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Burns, 186 Ark. 921, 56 S.W.2d 1027 (1933), this court observed:

It is a matter of ordinary observation that frequently there is some danger attendant upon the most common and ordinary transactions, but the care required is only to provide against such dangers as ought to be foreseen in the light of the attendant circumstances, and the ideal "prudent person" will therefore not neglect what he can foresee as probable nor divert his attention to the anticipation of events barely possible, but will order his conduct by the measure of what appears likely in the ordinary course of events.

Id. at 925, 56 S.W.2d at 1028 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). See also St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Ward, 197 Ark. 520, 124 S.W.2d 975 (1939). In short, to demonstrate foreseeability, the harm must be "within the range of probability as viewed by the ordinary man," and must, therefore, be more than "merely possible." Larson Machine, Inc. v. Wallace, 268 Ark. 192, 208, 600 S.W.2d 1, 9 (1980) (citing Hayes v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 208 Ark. 370, 186 S.W.2d 780 (1945)). It is not necessary, however, that the actor foresee the particular injury that occurred, only that he or she reasonably foresee an appreciable risk of harm to others. Broyles, 331 Ark. 58, 961 S.W.2d 712.

In the present case, there is no dispute that Johnson and his wife were invitees on Appellants' property. As such, Appellants had a duty to use ordinary care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition. See Like v. Pierce, 326 Ark. 802, 934 S.W.2d 223 (1996); Derrick v. Mexico Chiquito, Inc., 307 Ark. 217, 819 S.W.2d 4 (1991). The duty owed is not without bounds; rather, it is limited to the risk of harm that is reasonably foreseeable. See Lindle v. Shibley, 249 Ark. 671, 460 S.W.2d 779 (1970); Hartsock v. Forsgren, Inc., 236 Ark. 167, 365 S.W.2d 117 (1963). The concept of risk is thus an aspect of foreseeability. As Professor Dobbs explains:

Courts are likely to use the term "foreseeable" to mean that harm was not only foreseeable but also too likely to occur to justify risking it without added precautions.... Along the same lines, when courts say that harm is unforeseeable, they may mean that although harm was actually foreseeable on the facts of the case, a reasonable person would not have taken action to prevent it because the risk of harm was low, and harm was so improbable that a reasonable person would not have taken safety precautions. [Footnote omitted.]

1 Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts § 143, at 336-37 (2001).

Here, the alleged negligent act committed by Appellants was the placement of a metal trash container at the edge of a parking lot, adjacent to a pipe rack. Based on the evidence presented below, Appellant's act did not amount to an unreasonable risk. It was not foreseeable that an invitee would injure himself by attempting to manually move the 2,180 pound container on his own. Appellant...