English v. Robbins
2014 Ark. 511
Ark.
2014

Background

  • Robbins, court-appointed representative for Betty Phillips, sued several doctors for medical malpractice in 2006; settled with Slaton in 2009, then refiled against English and Brunner in 2010.
  • Approximately two weeks before trial, each appellant filed third-party complaints against Slaton for contribution/allocation of fault under UCATA and CJRA; Robbins moved to strike as untimely and improper post-abrogation of joint and several liability.
  • Circuit court allowed the third-party complaints less than 2 weeks before trial; Robbins argued prejudice and that CJRA/UCATA rights were not applicable.
  • Trial resulted in a verdict that Slaton alone violated the standard of care; the jury allocated 100% fault to Slaton and awarded Robbins zero damages; judgment entered Oct 3, 2012 with an amended judgment Oct 5, 2012.
  • Post-judgment, Robbins moved for a new trial; the circuit court vacated the judgment and granted a new trial based on decisions in Metheny and Shelton, and on Act 1116 (2013) which altered joint/several liability and introduced fault allocation rights; the order was appealed and affirmed, with cross-appeal deemed moot.
  • Dissenting opinion argues the jury found no fault by English or Brunner, rendering allocation analysis irrelevant

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Rule 60(c)(1) new-trial basis was properly applied Robbins argues grounds were discovered post-90 days (or within timely discovery under Metheny) Appellants contend grounds were timely and Metheny retroactivity applies Court affirmed trial court’s ruling; timing grounds not revisited on appeal due to independent Shelton basis
Retroactivity of Act 1116 (2013) for fault allocation Robbins argues Act 1116 retroactively allows fault allocation against Slaton Appellants contend Act 1116 creates new substantive rights and cannot be retroactive Act 1116 cannot be applied retroactively to this case; creates substantive rights absent prior law
Harmlessness of errors relating to Slaton's inclusion and jury instructions Errors in including Slaton and burden-of-proof instructions prejudiced Robbins Errors harmless since Slaton bore no fault in the verdict against appellants No manifest abuse; cumulative errors prevented a finding of harmless error; new trial affirmed
Prejudice from late third-party complaints Late-filed third-party complaints against Slaton prejudiced Robbins Court permissibly allowed late joinder; prejudice insufficient Court did not abuse discretion; prejudice established by timing and added issues
Cross-appeal mootness; adequacy of vacating judgment under CJRA/UCATA Cross-appeal concerns admissibility and trial strategy No need to address cross-appeal where new trial affirmed Cross-appeal moot; main appeal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

  • Proassurance Indemnity Co. v. Metheny, 2012 Ark. 461, 425 S.W.3d 689 (Ark. 2012) (CJRA not providing substantive fault-allocation right under retroactivity)
  • St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center v. Shelton, 2013 Ark. 38, 425 S.W.3d 761 (Ark. 2013) (UCATA cannot support third-party contribution after abrogation of joint and several liability)
  • J-McDaniel Construction Co. v. Dale E. Peters Plumbing, Ltd., 2014 Ark. 282, 436 S.W.3d 458 (Ark. 2014) (retroactivity of Act 1116 depends on substantive-right analysis)
  • Stoltz v. Friday, 1996 Ark. 299, 926 S.W.2d 438 (Ark. 1996) (prejudice considerations for amended complaints over a year after filing)
  • Skinner v. R.J. Griffin & Co., 313 Ark. 430, 855 S.W.2d 913 (Ark. 1993) (harmless-error standard for instructional issues; prejudice not required to show error)
  • England v. Costa, 364 Ark. 116, 216 S.W.3d 585 (Ark. 2005) (example of harmless error when correct instructions cure error)
  • Millers Cas. Ins. Co. v. Halbert, 253 Ark. 69, 484 S.W.2d 528 (Ark. 1972) (illustrates standards for new-trial discretion)
  • Druckenmiller v. Cluff, 316 Ark. 517, 873 S.W.2d 526 (Ark. 1994) (requires burden-shifting instruction when affirmative defenses are raised)
  • Bulsara v. Watkins, 2012 Ark. 108, 387 S.W.3d 165 (Ark. 2012) (standard for reviewing circuit court’s ruling on motion for new trial)
  • Archer v. Sisters of Mercy Health Sys., St. Louis, Inc., 375 Ark. 523, 294 S.W.3d 414 (Ark. 2009) (statutory retroactivity presumptions; legislative intent)
  • Walters v. Ark. Dept. of Human Servs., 315 Ark. 204, 866 S.W.2d 823 (Ark. 1993) (retroactivity constraints on substantive rights)
  • Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241, 308 S.W.3d 135 (Ark. 2009) (defining substantive rights vs. procedural)
Read the full case