Carr v. Nance
2010 Ark. 497
| Ark. | 2010Background
- Appellants Carrs and Tahoe Gaming challenged a jury verdict for Stewart and Pruett Nance, appealing on JNOV and punitive-damages instructions; appellees cross-appealed remittitur reducing Stewart Nance's compensatory damages.
- Plaintiffs alleged a cable strung across a paved road on the Dogpatch property (owner Westek, later Leisuretek and Tahoe Gaming) created an ultra-hazardous condition and was placed with malice, unmarked and not at the boundary, causing Pruett’s severe injuries after collision with an ATV.
- Mike Carr, acting as owner/agent of the property, supervised and allegedly approved access but did not warn or mark the hazard; Nances argued the landowner knew of the danger and failed to warn.
- Trial testimony described the cable as roughly waist to chest height with no flags; expert testified cable height at center between 42 and 46 inches; Pruett suffered severe injuries including trachea and esophagus damage.
- The jury awarded Pruett $100,000 compensatory and $150,000 punitive, and Stewart $400,000 compensatory; the circuit court later remitted Stewart’s compensatory to $233,707.42.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the direct-appeal judgment and reversed on cross-appeal, including remittitur reversal and remand to reinstate $400,000 to Stewart.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under § 18-11-307(1) | Nance contends malice, ultra-hazardous condition, and agency were proven. | Defendants dispute malice, danger, and agency. | Substantial evidence supports malice and ultra-hazardous condition; remittitur issues preserved. |
| Ultra-hazardous condition | Cable was a dangerous, ultra-hazardous condition. | Use of a cable can be common and managed with care; not inherently ultra-hazardous. | Evidence supports ultra-hazardous condition given unmarked cable in area with riders; affirmed. |
| Agency relationship | Mike and Michael Carr acted as agents of Tahoe Gaming/C.L. Carrs. | No preserved agency evidence; motion for JNOV improperly raised late. | Argument not preserved; remand uncertain; cross-appeal resolution stands. |
| Punitive-damages instruction | Instruction allowed lesser standards not tied to malice under § 18-11-307(1). | Instruction aligned with statute; implied malice permitted; no abuse of discretion. | Instruction upheld; higher statutory malice standard applied, no abuse. |
| Remittitur cross-appeal | Stewart’s $400,000 compensatory award was supported by evidence of caretaking and other costs. | Damages must be proven with specificity; excess must be remitted if unsupported. | Remittitur reversed; appellate reinstatement of $400,000 compensatory for Stewart. |
Key Cases Cited
- ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Draper, 872 Ark. 361 (2008) (standard for substantial-evidence review; appellate deference to jury verdicts)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Barber, 356 Ark. 268 (2004) (when no special interrogatories, avoid guessing jury basis)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Binns, 341 Ark. 157 (2000) (punitive-damages instruction must align with underlying malice standard)
- Seeholzer v. Kellstone, Inc., 610 N.E.2d 594 (1992) (ultra-hazardous condition and failure-to-warn concepts in other jurisdictions)
- Carlton v. Cleburne County, 93 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 1996) (malice inferred where knowledge of danger and conscious disregard shown)