Ford Motor Co. v. Washington, 431 S.W.3d 210

Washington sued Ford and others after a 2000 Ford Explorer rollover fatality; claims included negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, and warranties with punitive-damages sought.
Trial in 2010 against Ford resulted in jury finding Ford and Williams at fault and awarding $4,652,125 in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages; judgment memorialized by form statements of the jury verdict.
Ford pursued post-trial motions and an appeal; after remand, the circuit court entered a 2013 judgment against Ford for $7,152,125 with a nunc pro tunc provision dating to October 6, 2010 for postjudgment interest.
Ford challenged admissibility of evidence that Johnny Washington was not wearing a seat belt under Ark. Code Ann. § 27-37-703; the circuit court excluded the evidence after a hearing.
Washington contended the glazing claim (tempered vs laminated glass) was not preempted by FMVSS 205; the circuit court had initially ruled preemption but later held non-preemption, and trial used general verdict forms.
Ford raised issues on punitive damages, compensatory-damages reduction (concerning Williams’s fault) and the nunc pro tunc postjudgment-interest provision; the court ultimately affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Seat belt evidence admissibility	Ford proved noncompliance under 27-37-703.	Washington’s evidence was admissible or Ford failed evidence requirements.	Admissibility denied; circuit court did not abuse discretion.
Preemption of glazing claim by FMVSS 205	Glazing not preempted; jury should decide.	Glazing claim preempted; requires dismissal.	Waiver recognized; jury verdict cannot be speculated; glazing not reversible error; affirmed as to this point or remanded appropriately.
Punitive damages	Evidence showed malice/intentional indifference by Ford.	Evidence insufficient for punitive damages; only negligent conduct.	There is substantial evidence supporting punitive damages; affirmed.
Compensatory damages reduction	Release with Williams requires 50% reduction under 16-61-204; damages should be reduced.	No reduction because jury instructions encompassed Ford's damage share.	No reduction; damages represented Ford's proximately caused portion; affirmed.
Nunc pro tunc postjudgment interest	Nunc pro tunc designation improper since final judgment not entered earlier.	Court may correct record to reflect intended final judgment date for postjudgment interest.	Remanded; postjudgment interest should accrue from final judgment date (April 8, 2013).

Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Barber, 356 Ark. 268, 149 S.W.3d 325 (2004) (general verdicts prevent pinpointing basis for liability; court won't speculate)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Davis, 347 Ark. 566, 66 S.W.3d 568 (2002) (undifferentiated damages under general verdict; need for special interrogatories)
Pursley v. Price, 283 Ark. 33, 670 S.W.2d 448 (1984) (fighting fire with fire; admissibility of rebuttal evidence when door opened)
King v. State, 338 Ark. 591, 999 S.W.2d 183 (1999) (preservation and evidentiary considerations; burden on party)
Glover v. Woodhaven Homes, Inc., 346 Ark. 397, 57 S.W.3d 211 (2001) (post-judgment-interest standards; when to commence interest)
Chavers v. Epsco, Inc., 352 Ark. 65, 98 S.W.3d 421 (2003) (credibility and punitive damages standards; appellate review of trial decisions)
Bedell v. Williams, 2012 Ark. 75, 386 S.W.3d 493 (2012) (abuse of discretion standard and evidentiary rulings)
Esry v. Carden, 328 Ark. 153, 942 S.W.2d 846 (1997) (limits on jury verdict analysis when special interrogatories absent)
Phelan v. Discover Bank, 361 Ark. 138, 205 S.W.3d 145 (2005) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)