Warren v. Frizell
2017 Ark. App. 129
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On July 13, 2009, Frizell rear-ended Warren; Frizell admitted liability but contested the causal link between the accident and Warren’s medical treatment.
- Warren sought $6,820.38 in medical expenses and $10,000 in lost wages; trial occurred January 7, 2015.
- At trial Frizell testified he only "nicked" Warren’s bumper and denied significant movement; Warren testified to back/neck pain, ER visit, follow-up with Dr. Rutledge, physical therapy, and being off work July 20–Sept 29, 2009.
- During trial the court ruled (based on Frizell’s testimony) that Frizell was not contesting that the medical treatment was reasonable/necessary or that Warren needed to be off work; the court’s narrow rulings did not address the amount.
- Frizell’s counsel, in closing, told the jury they were bound by the court’s ruling to award $6,820.38; counsel was admonished, held in contempt and fined $800; jury asked whether they were required to award that amount, was told to apply instructions, and returned a verdict for Frizell (zero damages).
- Warren filed motions for JNOV and new trial (deemed denied) and appealed, arguing the court erred by not entering judgment for medical expenses and by denying a new trial; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should have entered judgment for medical expenses when defense counsel conceded reasonableness/necessity | Warren: defense concession bound Frizell and entitled Warren to judgment for $6,820.38 | Frizell: counsel’s statements were not binding admissions of the amount; factual dispute remained for jury | Court: counsel’s closing remarks did not constitute a binding concession; substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict for defendant |
| Whether counsel misconduct in closing required a new trial | Warren: counsel’s “gotcha” remarks and urging award of $6,820.38 prejudiced jury and warrant new trial | Frizell: court controlled the proceedings, admonished and fined counsel, and gave corrective instructions | Court: counsel’s conduct not sufficiently prejudicial; trial court did not abuse discretion denying new trial |
| Whether plaintiff proved damages were proximately caused by defendant despite admission of liability | Warren: medical bills linked to the accident; admission of liability should simplify damages award | Frizell: causation disputed—medical treatment not necessarily caused by collision | Court: plaintiff bears burden to prove causation; jury credited defense and substantial evidence supported verdict for defendant |
| Whether trial court’s narrowing rulings removed issues from jury improperly | Warren: court’s rulings and counsel’s statements suggested amount should be awarded as matter of law | Frizell: court’s rulings were narrow and left factual questions (amount/causation) to jury | Court: rulings were narrow; amount and causation were jury questions and court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Spann v. Lovett & Co., 389 S.W.3d 77 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (standard for reviewing directed-verdict and JNOV sufficiency of evidence)
- Gassman v. McAnulty, 325 S.W.3d 897 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (same rule applies to JNOV)
- Machost v. Simkins, 158 S.W.3d 726 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (attorney statements not evidence but concessions can bind client)
- D.B. & J. Holden Farms Ltd. P’ship v. Ark. State Highway Comm’n, 218 S.W.3d 355 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (trial-court discretion and standard for reviewing denial of new trial)