Mendoza v. WIS International, Inc.
490 S.W.3d 298
Ark.2016Background
- Certified question from the U.S. District Court (E.D. Ark.) under Rule 6-8 (2015) about Ark. Code Ann. § 27-37-703 and seat belt nonuse evidence.
- Case arises from Aug. 1, 2011 car crash on I-630 in Little Rock; Mendoza passenger in backseat, Adams driver who fell asleep, collided with parked excavator.
- Mendoza sues for personal injuries; WIS and Adams assert comparative fault including Mendoza’s seat belt nonuse.
- Arkansas statute § 27-37-703 prohibits admitting seat belt nonuse evidence in civil actions, with exceptions; the district court certified the constitutional question.
- Majority holds the statute unconstitutional as a separation-of-powers violation; dissenting opinions argue statute is substantive law or misapplies Rule 402 and advisory concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 27-37-703 violates separation of powers. | Mendoza argues statute governs substantive negligence law. | WIS/Adams argue it is procedural evidence-rule limiting admissibility. | Unconstitutional as a separation-of-powers violation. |
| Whether the statute is substantive or procedural law. | Statute defines negligence/ fault allocation. | Statute is a rule of evidence. | Statute is procedural per majority; thus unconstitutional under amendment 80. |
| Whether Rule 402/Johnson guidance supports the statute. | Legislature may determine relevance by statute. | Rules-control admissibility; legislation cannot override. | Majority rejects reliance on Rule 402 to uphold the statute; unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241 (Ark. 2009) (statute that limits admissible evidence violates separation of powers)
- Bedell v. Williams, 2012 Ark. 75 (Ark. 2012) (Rule-based privilege authority to legislature; Rule 501/502 distinction)
- Rockwell Automation, 2009 Ark. 241 (Ark. 2009) (articulates substantive vs. procedural distinction; nonparty fault discussed)
- Potts v. Benjamin, 882 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1989) (addresses substantive rule of law in tort context)
- Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415 (Ark. 2000) (rape-shield-like evidentiary restrictions treated as substantive departures)