*1 D. Andre F. PORCH Gwendolyn DEDMAN 87-227 Court Arkansas
Supreme delivered November Opinion *2 Crutcher, for P.A., Mays, appellant. RichardL. by: &Mays P.A., Laser, for & Mayes, appellee. Sharp returned a defendant’s The jury Justice. Purtle, John I. of an arising for out damages complaint on the appellant’s verdict (1) the argues: the appellant collision. For reversal automobile verdict; the court (2) the was insufficient to support evidence ticket; a traffic excluding paid evidence that the appellee erred jury the to instruct failing that the court erred in (3) We negligence. was traffic ordinance violation municipal is judgment and the error hold that the court did not commit affirmed. Fourteenth and intersection of at the
The collision occurred Rock, Fourteenth Little Arkansas. Street in the High city and two lanes for lanes for eastbound traffic Street has two the two lane street with traffic. Street is a High westbound lanes north and south. going opposing of Fourteenth in the inside lane The was eastbound appellant at the intersection following Street a van which had stopped The appellant Fourteenth and Street to make a left turn. High lane so she could switched lane to the outside from the inside the appellee the intersection. At the same time through proceed inside westbound lane of Fourteenth turning was left from the the intersection Street on Street. The collision occurred in High front corner right when the front of vehicle struck the appellant’s for was issued a traffic citation vehicle. appellee’s Appellee paid failure to the which he right-of-way subsequently yield instead of court. municipal appearing introduce to allow the appellant
The trial court refused the of the ticket. After evidence regarding appellee’s payment court rejected the trial judgment returned a for jury appellee, judgment and motion for a motion for a new trial appellant’s notwithstanding the verdict. issue trial first is whether or not the appeal
court
new
properly rejected
motion for
JNOV or a
appellant’s
trial. When
acting
motion for a new trial
upon
challenging
verdict,
jury’s
the trial court is
Rule 59(a)(6)
ARCP
required by
to set aside the verdict if it
to the
clearly
contrary
preponder
ance
or
to the law. The trial court has
contrary
great discretion in
find
ruling
its
and will not be reversed unless we
that the trial
manifestly
acting
abused his discretion by
or
Ad
improvidently
thoughtlessly without due consideration.
Parker,
v.
ams
(1986); Clayton
Wagnon,
Ark.
A judgment the be notwithstanding verdict may issued trial by the when is only there no substantial evidence to support the verdict and the other entitled to a party law judgment in City his favor. McCuiston v. Siloam 268 Springs, of 148, Ark. 594 S.W.2d (1980). considering 233 In the sufficiency of the evidence on the appeal, this court will consider only evidence favorable to the with all its reasonable appellee together inferences. Swink & Inc. v. & Company, Carroll McEntee Inc., 279, McGinley, 584 (1979). S.W.2d 393 Appellee testified that when he entered the the intersection light green. was He started his turn across the making eastbound lanes because a van was in the inside stopped eastbound lane getting to left he ready turn and did not see cars approaching in the outside eastbound lane. he saw Appellee further stated a appellant’s car second split before she hit his car and that his car was totaled. testified
Appellant that she the intersection in approached the lane next to the center line but changed the outside lane before entering the intersection in order to a vehicle in front pass of her. She testified she her brakes when saw applied she appellee’s car.
A police officer testified that vehicle left seven appellant’s feet of skid marks to the leading He stated that up point impact. the front portion vehicle sustained medium appellant’s damages across the damage area and the to the bumper appellee’s vehicle was enough severe to render it non-functional. The police
574 hour. an limit was miles thirty that the speed officer testified also vehicle said his was impression appellant’s One witness it struck when the standard rate on that road traveling was at about street down the people usually fly car and appellee’s that after witness testified or miles an hour. Another thirty forty while in the intersection the the was still appellee’s accident car ending on the corner through gone up car had appellant’s was light testified the a curb. accident who saw the Everyone for green appellee. both the appellant denying the trial court acted properly
We find that trial. a for a new motion for JNOV and motion appellant’s not finding clearly against was jury’s preponderance The jury was substantial evidence. supported by the evidence and entered the could found that the appellant negligently well have than was under greater prudent intersection at a speed she for circumstances and that failed to lookout keep proper not other traffic or her under It does keep proper vehicle control. we matter have different had might that we reached a conclusion been deciding the factual situation. argument next is that
Appellant’s appellee’s payment trial court traffic ticket was an interest and the against admission the jury, erred such to be allowing presented Blanton, citing (1948); Miller v. Ark. S.W.2d 293 (1962); Harbor Ark. Campbell, *4 Buslines, Williams, 854, Midwest Inc. v. 243 Ark. 422 S.W.2d stand for the that a (1968). Harbor Miller proposition court against of in is admissible as a declaration plea guilty open interest. Midwest Buslines the defendant was if he pled In asked answered, “Yes, to guilty charge a traffic and he I forfeited bond.” Since the and the was not question was trial court proper answer, called upon any to make on the this ruling unresponsive Court found no error was by committed trial court. 1979)
Arkansas Statute Annotated 75-1011 (Repl. § states, “No record forfeiture of a bond or of the conviction of in any person for violation shall be admissible as evidence any court civil to which any action.” We are unable find a case holds that a traffic entitles the side to paying ticket opposing introduce evidence of such We against as an admission interest. decline on rulings to invitation to our accept appellant’s expand this matter. We reaffirm position our proper a relating to traffic violation conviction is a party’s plea of guilty open court.
The third and argument final is that the Arkansas rules of evidence on traffic be The changed. appellant violations should would jury have the of statutes and instructed that violations but, ordinances create a he rebuttable of negligence; presumption did not such an proffer instruction to the trial court. The appellant object court, also did not instruction AMI given by the trial 903, concluded, which after “a setting forth two traffic ordinances ordinances, violation of one or more of two these although necessarily negligence, is evidence of negligence to be considered with by you along all of the other facts and this circumstances in case.”
It is well established
arguments
for the
presented
first time on
are not considered
this court. First
appeal
345,
Commercial
v. Meyer,
Bank
289 Ark.
Affirmed.
Holt, C.J., JJ., Newbern, and Hickman concur. Justice, Newbern, The David concurring. majority opin- ion refers both of “payment a ticket” and to forfeiture of bond. implication is that these are opinion different from one another. While I am familiar with the forfeiture of bond as a avoiding offense, means of adjudication an traffic am alleged I unaware that there is any procedure known as “payment ticket” which differs from forfeiture of bond.
In view it my enough to note that Ark. 75- Stat. Ann. § 1979) 1011 (Repl. provides that a forfeiture of a bond is not *5 admissible in court in a majority civil action. As the opinion cites no authority distinguish between the of a “payment bond, ticket” and forfeiture of a I no and as know of such a bond involved view that this case authority, my it on this point, the outcome statute should control forfeiture. The to “payment make a reference confusing we and should ticket.” C.J., Hickman, this concurrence.
Holt, join J. ALPHA CHAPTER OF PI KAPPA ALPHA ZETA Association, James FRATERNITY, an Unincorporated K. DAMRON, Sharon SULLIVAN Its President PRINCE, Co-Administrators Ken and as Individually PRINCE, Deceased ESTATE of Todd Alan 86-311 of Arkansas Court
Supreme delivered November Opinion [Rehearing denied December 1987.]