444 S.W.3d 428
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- On June 28, 2011, Ella Thurmon slipped on a slippery substance at MCSA (Medical Center of South Arkansas) and alleged serious, permanent injuries; she and her husband sued for negligence and loss of consortium.
- Service was perfected on MCSA; it did not timely answer, and the Thurmons moved for default judgment and requested a damages hearing.
- At the October 22, 2013 damages hearing (MCSA not notified and did not appear), the Thurmons offered only their testimony and medical bills/travel expenses totaling $30,809.98; counsel suggested damage figures to which Ella agreed.
- The circuit court entered default liability and awarded $645,809.98 in damages (including large sums for pain, mental anguish, consortium, and future medicals).
- MCSA later answered, moved to set aside the damages award under Ark. R. Civ. P. 55, argued the award lacked evidentiary support, and appealed after the motion was denied.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the damages award was clearly erroneous because it rested on speculation and counsel-suggested figures without supporting computation or expert/medical proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default establishes liability only, requiring a hearing on damages | Thurmons relied on their testimony and medical bills to prove damages | MCSA argued the damages hearing lacked notice to it and the awards had no evidentiary foundation | Default establishes liability but damages must be proved at hearing; court reversed damages award for lack of evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for future pain, permanency, and future medicals | Ella testified to permanent pain and limits; counsel proposed future-medical sums | MCSA argued no expert proof, no foundation tying bills/diagnosis to claimed permanency or amounts | Evidence of future pain/permanency must be shown with reasonable certainty; trial court erred in awarding speculative amounts |
| Reliance on plaintiffs’ counsel suggested figures | Plaintiffs contended the court could credit their testimony and accept proposed figures | MCSA contended the figures were conjured by counsel and lacked foundation | Court rejected reliance on off-the-record/suggested numbers absent supporting proof; numbers were speculative |
| Whether plaintiff’s medical bills justify a large multiple award for non-economic damages | Plaintiffs argued medical expenses are not the sole measure and life-altering injuries justify higher awards | MCSA argued the award was disproportionate to $30,809.98 in documented expenses and unsupported by evidence | Court acknowledged non-mechanical approach but held large ratio to medical bills required objective support; reversed and remanded for new damages hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Volunteer Transp., Inc. v. House, 162 S.W.3d 456 (Ark. 2004) (default establishes liability but damages require proof; expert testimony often necessary for permanency and future damages)
- McGraw v. Jones, 238 S.W.3d 15 (Ark. 2006) (self-serving testimony alone insufficient to support large default damages; court may not simply adopt counsel’s off-the-record suggestions)
- Entertainer, Inc. v. Duffy, 407 S.W.3d 514 (Ark. 2012) (a hearing is required to establish damages even when defendant defaults; plaintiff must introduce supporting evidence)