Hodges v. Jet Asphalt and Rock Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-161,90-161 |
| Citation | 808 S.W.2d 775,305 Ark. 466 |
| Parties | Charles T. HODGES and Ruby P. Hodges, Appellants, v. JET ASPHALT AND ROCK COMPANY, INC. and Farris Johnson, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Mike Kinard, Magnolia, for appellants.
R. Gary Nutter, Carol J. Dalby, Texarkana, for appellees.
The appellants in this case, Charles T. Hodges and Ruby P. Hodges, who were plaintiffs below in this tort action, raise one point on appeal. They contend that the trial judge erred in denying their motion for a new trial and in finding that the jury verdict was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
We disagree and affirm the trial judge's decision.
This case concerns a traffic accident between appellant Ruby P. Hodges, who was driving a Chevrolet Caprice, and appellee Farris Johnson, who was driving a three-axle dump truck owned by appellee Jet Asphalt and Rock Company, Inc. The accident occurred on August 31, 1988, at approximately 3:30 p.m. on U.S. Highway 79 within the city limits of Stephens, Arkansas. Hodges, with her two-year-old son in the passenger seat, was making a left turn across the south-bound lane into her driveway when her car was struck by Johnson's dump truck. Johnson was attempting to pass Hodges in the left lane and had signaled with his blinker light, but he did not sound his horn while passing. Both Hodges and her son sustained injuries.
Hodges filed a negligence action against the appellees, complaining of physical and emotional injuries and asking for damages of $500,000 against each appellee. Her husband joined her in the complaint, seeking $50,000 for loss of consortium. The couple asked for $100,000 for physical and emotional injuries to their son.
The case was presented to the jury on October 3, 1989, on interrogatories without objection by the appellants. In two separate interrogatories the jury answered that it had found by a preponderance of the evidence that Johnson and Hodges were each negligent and that each person's negligence proximately caused damages. The third interrogatory and answer read:
If you have answered both Interrogatory No. 1 and Interrogatory No. 2 "Yes," then answer this Interrogatory:
Using 100% to represent the total responsibility of the occurrence and any injuries or damages resulting from it, apportion the responsibility between the parties whom you have found to be responsible.
Answer: Farris Johnson 15%
Ruby Hodges 85%
The jury then in separate interrogatories stated these amounts for damages sustained: $75,000 by Ruby Hodges, $10,000 by her husband, and $10,000 by their son.
Judgment, which awarded $10,000 to the son but denied any recovery to Hodges or her husband, was entered by the trial court on October 23, 1989. The appellants filed a motion for new trial, asserting that the verdict was both too small and clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. The trial court denied that motion. The $10,000 award in favor of the son has been paid and is not part of this appeal.
The appellants' principal argument on appeal is that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a new trial, but underlying that is their contention that the jury was wrong in its assessment of fault. Particularly, the appellants contend that Hodges could not have been eighty-five percent negligent under the evidence presented in this case, and especially because the lead vehicle has the superior right of way. For the appellants to take anything under our comparative fault statute, the appellees must be more at fault than the appellants. See Ark.Code Ann. § 16-64-122 (1987).
Our test for reviewing the denial of a motion for new trial, however,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alter
...existence of the agreement, the jury was clearly free to disbelieve his testimony in light of the other evidence. Hodges v. Jet Asphalt, 305 Ark. 466, 808 S.W.2d 775 (1991). Ciba-Geigy contends the later settlement negotiations show the parties did not intend to be bound in July. An examina......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Massey, 92-1153
...prerogative of the jury to believe or to disbelieve the testimony of any witness. Johnson v. Clark, supra; Hodges v. Jet Asphalt & Rock Co., 305 Ark. 466, 808 S.W.2d 775 (1991). Where there is a conflict in the testimony and evidence presented by an expert, the determination by the jury of ......
-
Ray v. Green
...306 Ark. 337, 813 S.W.2d 783 (1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1067, 112 S.Ct. 959, 117 L.Ed.2d 126 (1991); Hodges v. Jet Asphalt & Rock Co., Inc., 305 Ark. 466, 808 S.W.2d 775 (1991); Ferrell v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., 291 Ark. 322, 724 S.W.2d 465 (1987). In determining the ex......
-
Patterson v. Odell
...by the defense. It is within the province of the jury to believe or disbelieve the testimony of any witness, Hodges v. Jet Asphalt, 305 Ark. 466, 808 S.W.2d 775 (1991); Fuller v. Johnson, 301 Ark. 14, 781 S.W.2d 463 (1989), and the rebuttal evidence was Affirmed. BROWN and ROAF, JJ., concur......