Havner v. Ne. Ark. Elec. Coop.
2016 Ark. 382
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Tony Havner was injured when a sickle tool on a trailer struck an overhead communications cable, which hit his motorcycle causing a crash.
- The cable was attached to a pole owned by Northeast Arkansas Electric Cooperative (NAEC) under an agreement, but NAEC did not own the cable itself.
- Havner sued NAEC (and others) for negligence, alleging failure to inspect/maintain the cable.
- NAEC moved for summary judgment arguing it had no duty regarding a cable it did not own and lacked notice of any dangerous condition; the Baxter County Circuit Court granted summary judgment for NAEC on October 21, 2014.
- A judgment with a Rule 54(b) certificate was stamped “PRESENTED” and “RECORDED” (but not marked “filed”); the court of appeals dismissed Havner’s appeal for lack of a final order under Administrative Order No. 2(b)(2).
- The Arkansas Supreme Court, referencing In re Administrative Order No. 2(b)(2), treated marks of “recorded”/“presented” as “filed” for the relevant period, vacated the court of appeals opinion, and remanded the appeal for consideration on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NAEC had a legal duty to inspect/maintain the cable | Havner: NAEC owed duty because cable was attached to NAEC pole and its condition caused injury | NAEC: No duty because it did not own the cable and had no notice of defect | Court did not decide merits; remanded to court of appeals for merits review |
| Whether the circuit court's order was a final, appealable judgment | Havner: The judgment with Rule 54(b) certificate was final and appealable | NAEC: Court of appeals concluded not final due to lack of "filed" stamp per admin order | Supreme Court treated "recorded"/"presented" marks as "filed" for the relevant period and remanded |
| Effect of Baxter County clerk’s stamping practice on appealability | Havner: Clerk’s stamps should not defeat appealability | County/administrative practice: software-generated marks led to inconsistent filing marks | Supreme Court exercised superintending control and deemed such marks "filed" between May 1, 2013 and April 14, 2016 |
| Appropriate procedural disposition | Havner: Appeal should proceed on merits | Court of Appeals: Dismiss appeal without prejudice | Supreme Court vacated court of appeals opinion and remanded for merits consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Administrative Order No. 2(b)(2), 2016 Ark. 172 (per curiam) (Arkansas Supreme Court directive deeming "recorded"/"presented" clerk marks as "filed" for specified period and exercising superintending control over clerks)