Carl Baldwin & Bob Bradley v. Corey Lloyd
709 S.W.3d 54
Ark. Ct. App.2025Background
- Appellee Corey Lloyd sued Carl Baldwin and Bob Bradley for wrongfully cutting and removing timber from Lloyd’s property, adjacent to Baldwin’s land.
- Lloyd argued that approximately 3.3 acres of his land were cut, and he requested damages including timber value and restoration costs.
- The jury awarded Lloyd $50,000 in damages, which the circuit court doubled to $100,000 as required by Arkansas law.
- Baldwin and Bradley filed for remittitur or a new trial, contending the damages exceeded the highest amount supported by expert testimony.
- The circuit court denied their motion, leading Baldwin and Bradley to appeal on grounds of excessive damages and improper admission of certain testimony.
- The appellate court affirmed the judgment only if Lloyd accepted a remittitur down to $19,323.10; otherwise, a new trial was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive Damages Award | Jury could use all evidence, including drone/neighbors. | Damages unsupported by evidence, far exceeded expert testimony. | Award excessive, remittitur required. |
| Scope of Admissible Testimony | Jury not bound only by expert testimony. | Jury ignored instructions, relied on excluded/excessive testimony. | Not reached due to ruling on remittitur. |
| Basis for Damages Calculation | Damages included cleanup, value of use, and restoration. | Calculation should be capped by highest credible expert valuation. | Award must reflect credible expert amounts. |
| Appropriate Remedy (Remittitur/New Trial) | New trial if award is excessive; opposed to remittitur. | Remittitur appropriate to highest proven damages, else new trial. | Affirmed only if remittitur accepted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Travis Lumber Co. v. Deichman, 2009 Ark. 299 (jury award of damages must be supported by specific evidence; remittitur appropriate when award is excessive)
- Advocat, Inc. v. Sauer, 353 Ark. 29 (remittitur available when compensatory damages are excessive)
- ProAssurance Indem. Co. v. Metheny, 2012 Ark. 461 (remittitur reviewed de novo on appeal)
- Hogan v. Holliday, 72 Ark. App. 67 (abuse of discretion standard for review of new trial motions)