Moses v. Hanna's Candle Co.

• Decision Date: 01 May 2003
• Docket Number: No. 02-748.,02-748.
• Citation: 110 S.W.3d 725
• Parties: Angelique Voss MOSES v. HANNA'S CANDLE COMPANY.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 725

110 S.W.3d 725

Angelique Voss MOSES v. HANNA'S CANDLE COMPANY.

No. 02-748.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 1, 2003.

Taylor Law Firm, by: Timothy L. Brooks and Chris D. Mitchell; and Rose & Woods, by: Rick E. Woods, Fayetteville, for appellant.

Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP, by: Gordon S. Rather, Jr. and Troy A. Price, Little Rock, for appellees.

JIM HANNAH, Justice.

Appellant Angelique Voss Moses appeals a Washington County Circuit Court order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees Hanna's Candle Co. ("HCC"), and Burt Hanna, individually. Moses raises three points on appeal. She argues that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in ruling that Ark.Code Ann. § 11-9-105(a) (Supp.1995), does not unconstitutionally deprive Moses of a tort remedy against a non-employer, in violation of article 5, section 32, of the Arkansas Constitution. In addition, Moses argues that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in ruling that the dual-persona doctrine has been abrogated, thus barring her from seeking a tort remedy from the appellees. Finally, Moses argues that the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act creates an outcome that is contrary to both the stated goals of the Workers' Compensation Act and the deterrent nature of the Products Liability Act and, as such, is contrary to public policy.

We do not reach the merits of this case because the order granting summary judgment to HCC and Burt Hanna, individually, is not a final, appealable order, as required by Ark. R.App. P.-Civ. 2 (2002), and Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (2002). Therefore, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of finality.

Facts

Because we do not address the merits of this case, our recitation of facts will be limited to those facts which pertain to the issue of finality. In November 1997, Moses was employed by Volt Services Group ("Volt"). Volt provided temporary workers to HCC for HCC's candle-making facility in Fayetteville, Arkansas. On November 20, 1997, Moses was working on a production line at HCC when her hand was caught in a candle press machine, causing an injury which later resulted in the amputation of her right hand.

On November 15, 2000, Moses filed a complaint in which she alleged a products liability cause of action against Hanna's Potpourri Specialties, Inc.;¹ HCC, Hanna Wax Corp., Burt Hanna, LLC; Burt Hanna, individually; and John Does 1-10. Subsequently, on May 4, 2001, the circuit court entered an order dismissing separate defendants Hanna Wax Corp., and Burt Hanna, LLC. After this order was entered, the remaining defendants were HCC, Burt Hanna, individually, and John Does 1-10.

HCC and Burt Hanna, individually, filed a motion for summary judgment. The circuit court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of HCC and Burt Hanna, individually, on March 6, 2002. The record indicates that the circuit court has not entered a final order as to John Does 1-10. In addition, this appeal was not certified pursuant to Rule 54(b).

Rule 54(b)

Although neither party raises the issue, the question of whether an order is final and subject to appeal is a jurisdictional question which the court will raise sua sponte. Reed v. Ark. State Highway Comm'n, 341 Ark. 470, 17 S.W.3d 488 (2000). Rule 54(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that

any ... order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all ...