Davis v. Schneider National, Inc.
2013 Ark. App. 737
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Davis sued Schneider National Carriers, Inc.; Schneider National, Inc.; and Paul Turner for injuries from a 2008 Jefferson County motor-vehicle collision, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Claims alleged negligence and negligence per se against Turner and Schneider, including vicarious liability and direct negligence against Schneider.
- Collision occurred at a stop-controlled intersection on a county road with fog noted as a contributing weather condition; Turner was driving a Schneider tractor-trailer and Davis attempted a left turn onto Highway 79.
- Davis alleged Turner’s negligent and reckless driving and Schneider’s negligent and reckless failure to inform Turner of sleep apnea; she amended to add these proximate-cause theories before summary judgment.
- Schneider and Turner moved for summary judgment arguing Davis failed to stop/yield as the sole proximate cause; a separate motion sought to strike the amended complaint.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims, later addressing punitive damages only by implication; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proximate cause bars Davis’s claims as a matter of law | Davis contends fog and Turner’s speed created triable issues on proximate cause. | Defendants contend Davis’s failure to stop/yield was the sole proximate cause; no genuine fact for proximate causation. | Proximate cause found for Davis not established; summary judgment affirmed on proximate-cause issue. |
| Whether Turner’s deposition and other evidence can support summary judgment | Davis argues that additional evidence raises material fact questions about visibility. | Turner’s testimony and meteorological data establish a prima facie case; fog conditions not in dispute that preclude summary judgment. | Turner’s deposition properly considered; self-serving affidavits and Rule 56(e) compliance allowed; no triable issue on visibility. |
| Whether the amended pleadings and late deposition materials could defeat summary judgment | Davis sought to add sleep apnea and related theories after the motion and relied on full transcripts. | Amendment and late submissions were improper; cannot rely on materials not timely presented. | Late amendments and evidence were not considered; Davis failed to overcome prima facie case with proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawson v. Stephens, 241 Ark. 407, 407 S.W.2d 917 (1966) (right-of-way assumption until contrary appears)
- Shroeder v. Johnson, 234 Ark. 443, 352 S.W.2d 570 (1962) (through-street duty to yield and reasonable precautions)
- Cragar v. Jones, 280 Ark. 549, 660 S.W.2d 168 (1983) (proximate cause and negligence standards)
- Neal v. Sparks Reg’l Med. Ctr., 2012 Ark. 328, S.W.3d (2012) (proximate cause and summary-judgment framework)
- Campbell v. Asbury Auto., Inc., 381 S.W.3d 21 (Ark. 2012) (summary-judgment standard and proof with proof principle)
- Cent. Okla. Pipeline, Inc. v. Hawk Field Servs., LLC, 400 S.W.3d 701 (Ark. 2012) (summary judgment evidentiary considerations)
- Barriga v. Arkansas & Missouri R.R. Co., 87 S.W.3d 808 (Ark. App. 2002) (summary-judgment context and burden-shifting)