Meador v. Total Compliance Consultants, Inc.
425 S.W.3d 718
Ark.2013Background
- Meador was injured at Gates Rubber Company when his right hand was caught in a profiling machine, severing fingers and injuring his arm.
- Meador alleged TCC contracted with Gates to advise on safety compliance and that TCC breached its contract or was negligent in not requiring safeguards or removal of the machine.
- The jury found Meador was a third-party beneficiary of the TCC–Gates contract, but found TCC not negligent and not in breach; the circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- Meador moved in limine to prohibit evidence or argument that fault rested with a nonparty (the empty-chair defense); the circuit court limited the defense to TCC’s advisory role and forbade implying Gates could be liable.
- Meador challenged the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122 (comparative fault) as applied; the circuit court deferred ruling, later issued an unclear pre-instruction ruling that instructed on comparative fault, but the verdict found no negligence by TCC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred in allowing the empty-chair defense | Meador contends it impermissibly insinuated nonparties' fault | TCC argues limited, non-prejudicial use consistent with rulings | No reversible error; defense limited and Meador failed to obtain a ruling on constitutional aspects |
| Whether Meador preserved his constitutional challenges to the comparative-fault statute for appeal | Meador alleges § 16-64-122 unconstitutional as applied | TCC asserts issue not properly preserved below | Review precluded; no ruling on the constitutional issue preserved in the record |
| Whether the comparative-fault statute was unconstitutional as applied given the trial outcome | Meador claims fault rules reduced his recovery improperly | Jury found no negligence by TCC; statute not applied | Not applicable; statute not applied since verdict found no TCC negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241 ((Ark. 2009)) (empty-chair defense challenged as unconstitutional)
- Gwin v. Daniels, 357 Ark. 623 ((Ark. 2004)) (failure to obtain ruling precludes appellate review)
- Tsann Kuen Enters. Co. v. Campbell, 355 Ark. 110 ((Ark. 2003)) (standing and injury require actual application of statute)
- Schichtl v. Slack, 293 Ark. 281 ((Ark. 1987)) (motions in limine used to prevent specific inflammatory matters, not as broad testing of law)
- Health Facilities Mgmt. Corp. v. Hughes, 365 Ark. 237 ((Ark. 2006)) (burden to obtain ruling when motion in limine is violated)