Wilson v. Evans, 84-170

Decision Date19 November 1984
Docket NumberNo. 84-170,84-170
Citation679 S.W.2d 205,284 Ark. 101
PartiesConnie WILSON, Appellant, v. Thomas J. EVANS, Appellee.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Butler, Hicky, Hicky & Routon, Ltd. by Preston G. Hicky, Forrest City, for appellant.

B. Michael Easley, Forrest City, and James Smedley, Little Rock, for appellee.

HUBBELL, Chief Justice.

This personal injury case involves two automobile accidents. On October 2, 1979, appellant, Connie Wilson, struck the rear of the vehicle of Thomas J. Evans, appellee. Over five months later, appellee ran into the back of a third party's vehicle. Appellee contends that the second accident was a result of a black out spell caused by his first accident. This is the second appeal in this case which was reversed and remanded on different issues. Evans v. Wilson, 279 Ark. 224, 650 S.W.2d 569 (1983). After reversal, a verdict and judgment of $35,000.00 was awarded Mr. Evans. On appeal, appellant argues that the second accident was not proximately caused by appellant's acts and that proof of damages sustained in the second accident should not have been presented. We agree and reverse and remand for a new trial.

Proximate cause is defined in terms of direct causation. Kubik v. Igleheart, 280 Ark. 310, 657 S.W.2d 545 (1983). Proximate cause is that cause which "in a natural and continuous sequence, produces damage." A.M.I. 501; Bull v. Manning, 245 Ark. 552, 433 S.W.2d 145 (1968); Ben M. Hogan & Co. v. Krug, 234 Ark. 280, 351 S.W.2d 451 (1961).

In this case, over five months had elapsed between the first accident and Mr. Evans's second accident. Less than a month before the second accident, Mr. Evans had consulted a physician for vertigo and blacking out, yet he continued to drive his automobile knowing he was subject to spells of dizziness and blacking out.

There was no issue for the jury presented since appellant's acts did not lead in natural sequence without an intervening cause to appellee's injuries suffered in the second accident. Although proximate causation is usually a question for the jury, where reasonable minds cannot differ a question of law is presented for determination by the court. Cragar v. Jones, 280 Ark. 549, 660 S.W.2d 168 (1983); Keck v. American Employment Agency, Inc., 279 Ark. 294, 652 S.W.2d 2 (1983).

Reversed and remanded.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, J., concurs.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice, concurring.

I agree that testimony about the second accident was not admissible, the element of proximate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Jackson v. Cadillac Cowboy, Inc.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 18, 1999
    ...for the jury, where reasonable minds cannot differ, a question of law is presented for determination by the court. Wilson v. Evans, 284 Ark. 101, 679 S.W.2d 205 (1984). ...
  • Ashley County, Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • January 5, 2009
    ...issue to be decided by a jury, it becomes a question of law for the court when reasonable minds could not differ. Wilson v. Evans, 284 Ark. 101, 679 S.W.2d 205, 206 (1984) (reversing jury verdict where there was no causal connection between two accidents occurring five months apart); cf. Yo......
  • In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 2, 2009
    ...fact, except where the evidence is such that reasonable minds cannot differ. Ashley County, 552 F.3d at 667 (citing Wilson v. Evans, 284 Ark. 101, 679 S.W.2d 205, 206 (1984)). Wyeth and Upjohn argue that the evidence was not sufficient to show that an adequate warning would have prevented S......
  • Skinner v. R.J. Griffin & Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1993
    ...is such that reasonable minds cannot differ, the issue becomes a question of law to be determined by the trial court. Wilson v. Evans, 284 Ark. 101, 679 S.W.2d 205 (1984). Here, reasonable minds cannot differ: The evidence at trial did not establish a causal connection between the failure t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT