LaFont v. Mixon
2010 Ark. 450
| Ark. | 2010Background
- Appellants Christopher and Erin LaFont appeal after a jury verdict in their favor but costs awarded to Appellee Mooney Mixon under Rule 68.
- Casualty arose from a multi-vehicle collision near the intersection of Arkansas Highways 7 and 84 in Bismarck, Arkansas; Mooney admitted striking the rearmost of four stopped vehicles.
- Jury awarded total damages to each LaFont (Christopher $8,197.50; Erin $2,447.50; Tyler $2,? — all medical expenses listed) with no future wages or pain-and-suffering.
- Mooney offered judgments prior to trial: $12,000 to Christopher, $14,000 to Erin, $4,500 to Tyler; liability later admitted, dispute over damages proceeded to trial.
- Circuit Court granted $6,091.72 in Rule 68 costs to Mooney; judgment noted and separate Rule 68 memorandum filed.
- Appellants filed motions for new trial and for reconsideration of costs, raising constitutional challenges to Rule 68 and alleged trial deficiencies, which the court denied
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 68 and jury trial right conflict | LaFont argues Rule 68 violates jury-trial rights and equal protection | Mooney argues Rule 68 is constitutional and promotes settlements; no right to trial is violated | Rule 68 does not infringe the Arkansas Constitution right to a jury trial |
| Equal protection under Rule 68 | LaFont contends Rule 68 unconstitutionally discriminates between plaintiffs and defendants | Rule 68 differentiates parties by role (plaintiff vs defendant) and is rationally related to encouraging settlements | Rule 68 passes rational-basis review; plaintiffs and defendants are not similarly situated; no equal-protection violation |
| Void-for-vagueness and without-purchase challenges | LaFont argues Rule 68 is vague and violates the 'without purchase' clause | Rule 68 defines costs and promotes settlements; arguments raised late are waived | Claims not preserved timely; arguments not reviewable on appeal |
| New trial — consistency with instructions | LaFont claims verdict inconsistencies show failure to follow instructions | No timely objection; verdict later polled; potential inconsistency waived | Waived; no reversible error on this basis |
| Closing arguments and prejudice | LaFont asserts improper closing remarks prejudiced jury | Remarks were retracted and court instructed to ignore counsel arguments as evidence | No reversible error; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Clift v. Jordan, 207 Ark. 66. 178 S.W.2d 1009 ((1944)) (verdict instructions; opportunity to resubmit inconsistent verdict)
- Stamper v. Aluminum & Zinc Die Cast Co., 283 Ark. 92. 671 S.W.2d 170 ((1984)) (courts may correct prejudicial effect of counsel’s remarks)
- Howe v. Freeland, 237 Ark. 705. 875 S.W.2d 666 ((1964)) (admonitions after improper closing remarks; no reversible error)
- Warr v. Williamson, 359 Ark. 234. 195 S.W.3d 903 ((2004)) (Rule 68 settlement policy; encourages settlement)
- Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1. 105 S. Ct. 3012. 87 L. Ed. 2d 1 ((1985)) (neutral policy of settlement; federal Rule 68 cited)
- Neeley v. Barber, 288 Ark. 384. 706 S.W.2d 358 ((1986)) (preservation of errors; timely objection requirement)
- Anglin v. Johnson Reg’l Med. Ctr., 375 Ark. 10. 289 S.W.3d 28 ((2008)) (fundamental right to jury trial; constitutional standards)
- Franklin v. Healthsource of Arkansas, 328 Ark. 163. 942 S.W.2d 887 ((1997)) (made-whole doctrine referenced but not reached on appeal)
- P.A.M. Transp., Inc. v. Ark. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 315 Ark. 234. 868 S.W.2d 33 ((1993)) (predecessor discussions on settlement policy)
- Jones v. Double “D” Props., Inc., 352 Ark. 39. 98 S.W.3d 405 ((2003)) (timeliness of raising issues; preservation)