570 S.W.3d 457
Ark.2019Background
- Johnny Newborn died after residence at Davis Life Care Center (DLCC); his sister Gracie Neal sued the facility for negligence, medical malpractice, breach of contract, violations of residents' rights, and related claims seeking damages.
- DLCC asserted charitable immunity and obtained summary judgment in circuit court; the court of appeals reversed, concluding reasonable persons could differ based on the Masterson factors and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand the circuit court bifurcated proceedings but submitted the ultimate charitable-immunity question to a jury via a single interrogatory; the jury found DLCC not entitled to charitable immunity and the court entered judgment on that verdict.
- DLCC appealed, arguing (1) the charitable-immunity question is for the court, not the jury; (2) jury instructions were inadequate; and (3) the verdict was contrary to the evidence and law.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed: it held the ultimate legal determination of charitable immunity is for the court; if disputed facts exist, they may be tried to a jury, but the legal conclusion must be made by the court after the factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Neal) | Defendant's Argument (DLCC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether charitable-immunity entitlement is a question for the jury or the court | Charitable status involves disputed facts and may be submitted to the jury | Ultimate question is a matter of law for the court; submitting it to the jury was error | The ultimate question is legal and for the court; disputed facts may be tried to a jury but the court decides legal sufficiency |
| Proper procedure after remand where appellate court found factual issues | Circuit-court submission to jury was appropriate to resolve factual disputes | Court should hear evidence and decide immunity as a matter of law if possible | Court reversed the jury submission and remanded for the court to hear evidence and decide legal entitlement; jury may only resolve underlying factual disputes |
| Effect of submitting immunity to jury on immunity-from-suit doctrine | (Implicit) jury determination preserves plaintiff's right to trial on merits if immunity rejected | Submission undermines immunity-from-suit because immunity is entitlement not to stand trial | Court emphasized immunity is immunity from suit and must be narrowly construed; care needed in procedure to preserve immunity rulings |
| Standard for resolving immunity on undisputed facts | Jury needed when facts disputed | Where facts undisputed or only legal interpretations differ, court should decide as matter of law | If reasonable persons would not reach different conclusions from undisputed facts, court must decide immunity as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Masterson v. Stambuck, 321 Ark. 391 (factors to determine charitable status)
- Anglin v. Johnson Regional Medical Ctr., 375 Ark. 10 (discusses when charitable-immunity is question of law vs. fact)
- Low v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 364 Ark. 427 (charitable immunity is immunity from suit)
- George v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n, 337 Ark. 206 (limitations on jury role when legal interpretation of undisputed facts)
- Williams v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n, 246 Ark. 1231 (narrow construction of charitable immunity)
- Robinson v. Beaumont, 291 Ark. 477 (distinguishing immunity from suit vs. immunity from liability)