R&L Carriers Shared Services, LLC v. Markley
2017 Ark. App. 240
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Negligence action involving an eighteen-wheeler that struck a low-hanging telephone line during repair work.
- Stuart Markley, MCTC employee, was repairing the line from a bucket; no harness or warning cones used.
- Dean Wethington, employer of plaintiff-appellant R&L, drove the eighteen-wheeler that snagged the line.
- R&L sought implied indemnity from MCTC under workers’ compensation exclusivity exception; circuit court denied dismissal and later summary judgment.
- Jury found Markley 35% at fault, R&L and Wethington 65% at fault; damages $570,000; judgment against R&L and Wethington; appeal challenged summary judgment, JNOV/new trial, and evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a special relationship giving rise to implied indemnity? | R&L argues OSHA/NESC laws create a special relationship. | MCTC contends no special relationship; statutory duties do not equal implied indemnity. | No special relationship; summary judgment for MCTC affirmed. |
| Was the denial of JNOV/new trial proper given foreseeability evidence? | Foreseeability of Markley’s injuries was not established; negligent conduct not shown. | Foreseeable risk present; substantial evidence supports judgment. | Denial affirmed; substantial evidence supports verdict. |
| Did the circuit court abuse its discretion on workers’ compensation collateral-source evidence? | Evidence of workers’ comp benefits should be admissible to rebut financial necessity. | Collateral-source rule normally bars it; door opened by financial-necessity claim. | No reversible error; any prejudice cured by cautionary instruction. |
| Was Shrum deposition properly excluded given no ruling below? | Deposition of MCTC’s owner should have been admitted. | No ruling below; issue not reviewable on appeal. | Issue not reviewable; exclusion affirmed. |
| Was hypothetical-compliance testimony admissible and properly admitted? | Testimony that harness use could worsen injuries is admissible to show risk. | Testimony speculative; experts must be qualified for hypothetical questions. | Admissible; Dr. Knox qualified; testimony ultimately harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mosley Mach. Co., Inc. v. Gray Supply Co., 310 Ark. 214 (1992) (implied indemnity requires a special relationship created by statute/regulation)
- Smith v. Paragould Light & Water Comm’n, 303 Ark. 109 (1990) (sewer tapping statute created special relationship for indemnity)
- Intents, Inc. v. Southwestern Electric Power Co., 2011 Ark. 32 (2011) (Work Near High Voltage Lines Act created special relationship for indemnity)