Hardin v. Bishop
2013 Ark. 395
Ark.2013Background
- Wardlaw burned vegetation on Bishop’s property to clean a ditch, causing a fire that spread to Hardin/Guthrey’s building and destroyed Entergy equipment.
- Hardin and Guthrey sued Bishop and Wardlaw for damages, including potential double damages under Arkansas Code §20-22-304.
- Bishop moved for summary judgment contending Wardlaw was not her agent and requesting an alternative ruling on double damages.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment on agency; it did not separately rule on damages, and Wardlaw was later held liable in a default judgment.
- Entergy intervened for damages and Bishop’s motion was adopted against it; the appeal was certified to address agency and damages.
- Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the agency issue must be resolved, with damages to be addressed after remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact on agency between Bishop and Wardlaw? | Hardin/Guthrey showed Wardlaw acted as Bishop’s agent. | Bishop contends Wardlaw was not her agent; no agency control. | Agency issue exists; summary judgment improper. |
| Can Bishop be vicariously liable for Wardlaw’s fire-causing actions? | Agency proven or disputed factual question; liability possible. | No agency, thus no vicarious liability. | Remanded to resolve agency before addressing liability. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate on agency under Rule 56? | Evidence creates genuine issues of material fact. | No genuine issues; Bishop entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | Not dispositive; need remand for factual dispute. |
| Should double damages under §20-22-304 be addressed before agency? | Damages issue intertwined with agency determination. | Damages not ripe while agency still unresolved. | Damages remanded/not ripe pending agency ruling. |
| Did the circuit court’s lack of explicit ruling bar appellate review? | No explicit basis; issues should be reviewed. | Rule 52(a) suffices; no need for express findings. | Not a bar; review permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Gill, 326 Ark. 1040 (Ark. 1996) (agency question determined at law when undisputed facts)
- Pledger v. Troll Book Clubs, Inc., 316 Ark. 195 (Ark. 1994) (agency elements: authority and control)
- Schuster’s, Inc. v. Whitehead, 291 Ark. 180 (Ark. 1987) (circumstantial proof can establish agency)
- Braley v. Arkhola Sand & Gravel Co., 203 Ark. 894 (Ark. 1942) (great weight given to relationship when combined with other facts)
- Couch v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 375 Ark. 255 (Ark. 2008) (summary-judgment requires genuine issues of material fact)
- Gray v. Mitchell, 373 Ark. 560 (Ark. 2008) (summary-judgment and agency considerations)
- Walls v. Humphries, 2013 Ark. 286 (Ark. 2013) (summary-judgment; purpose is to determine if issues exist to be tried)
- Campbell v. Asbury Auto., Inc., 2011 Ark. 157 (Ark. 2011) (standard for evaluating summary judgment on material facts)
- Harrisburg Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. Neal, 2011 Ark. 233 (Ark. 2011) (summary-judgment burden and proof-shifting)