Williamson v. Baptist Health Med. Ctr., CV–16–185

• Decision Date: 16 March 2017
• Docket Number: No. CV–16–185,CV–16–185
• Parties: Elizabeth Ann WILLIAMSON, Administrator of the Estate of Cynthia Frazier, Appellant v. BAPTIST HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

514 S.W.3d 445

Elizabeth Ann WILLIAMSON, Administrator of the Estate of Cynthia Frazier, Appellant

v.BAPTIST HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee

No. CV–16–185

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered March 16, 2017

Appellate Solutions, PLC, by: Deborah Truby Riordan ; Law Offices of Eric D. Wewers, PLLC, by: Eric D. Wewers ; and Rochelle & McCullough, LLP, by: Greg Bevel and Kathryn Reid, pro hac vice, Little Rock, for appellant.

Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A., by: Bruce Munson, Jane M. Yocum, and Ashleigh Phillips, Little Rock, for appellees.

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice

Elizabeth Ann Williamson, administrator of the estate of Cynthia Frazier, appeals from a judgment entered and from the denial of a new-trial motion in a wrongful-death suit against Baptist Medical Center (Baptist). On appeal, she argues that the jury award omitted loss-of-life damages, rendering the award inadequate and contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. She also argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by substituting its verdict for that of the jury, and that the judgment entered grants Baptist an "unconscionable quadruple reduction in liability." In her supplemental argument, Williamson asserts that she did not waive the issue of the circuit court's misinterpretation of the verdict and, alternatively, the judgment on its face is not a final order. Baptist cross-appeals, contingent on this court ordering a new trial. It argues that the circuit court erred in giving certain jury instructions and in making some evidentiary rulings. We dismiss this appeal for lack of a final order.

Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1–2(e) (2016), as we granted a petition for review filed by Williamson after the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Williamson v. Baptist Health Med. Ctr. , 2016 Ark. App. 78, 2016 WL 537280.

When we grant a petition for review, we consider the appeal as though it had been originally filed in this court. Lagios v. Goldman , 2016 Ark. 59, 483 S.W.3d 810.

Cynthia Frazier was fatally injured when she was struck by a car driven by fellow Baptist employee Cassandra Johnson as she walked from an employee parking lot across Emergency Drive on the Baptist campus. Frazier's estate sued Baptist for wrongful death. At the request of Baptist, the case was submitted to the jury on interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 5 contained the following language, "State the amount of damages, if any, which you find from the preponderance of the evidence was sustained by the Plaintiff in this case." The jury returned the following findings:

Answer:

$72,400.00 awarded to the Estate of Cynthia Frazier

$250,000.00 awarded to Elizabeth Williamson

$250,000.00 awarded to Emily Blohm

$250,000.00 awarded to Katherine Frazier

The jury was also instructed to determine the percentage of fault to be apportioned between Baptist, Johnson, and Frazier. It fixed the percentages at 20 percent, 62 percent, 18 percent, respectively.

Before we consider the arguments on appeal, we must first determine whether this court has jurisdiction to consider the merits. Denney v. Denney , 2015 Ark. 257, 464 S.W.3d 920. With the exception of certain interlocutory appeals listed in Rule 2 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure—Civil, this court's appellate jurisdiction in civil matters is limited to final orders or judgments. Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2(a)(1). We have said that the requirement of a final judgment is the "cornerstone of appellate jurisdiction." Ark. State Claims Comm'n v. Duit Constr. Co., Inc. , 2014 Ark. 432, at 10, 445 S.W.3d 496, 503. Accordingly, determining whether we have jurisdiction requires us to construe the judgment.

"As a general rule, judgments are to be construed like other written instruments, and the legal effect of a judgment must be declared in light of the literal meaning of the language used." Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 74 (2006). However, in Ford Motor Co. v. Washington , 2013 Ark. 88, 2013 WL 776233, this court held that a judgment is not final unless it sets forth the specific dollar amount owed by the defendant. When a judgment requires interpretation based on information not manifest on the face of the judgment, it is not a final order for appellate purposes. Id.

In Ford , as in the case before us, the case was submitted to the jury on interrogatories that asked the jury to both apportion fault and determine damages. The original judgment entered by the circuit court and placed before this court in Ford merely reproduced the interrogatories without further interpretation by the circuit court. Id. Accordingly, there existed on the face of the judgment an ambiguity—whether the jury had apportioned the fault in making its damages award or whether the apportionment had yet to be done. Id. That is exactly the situation we have in the case before us. Here, the jury found, and the circuit court copied verbatim, the jury's response to the interrogatories...