Arkansas Injury Lawyer Blog

Issues of Immunity in Arkansas Accidents Involving Government Employees

May 11, 2017 | Paul Pfeifer

Proving an Arkansas personal injury case against another driver is not always as straightforward as it may seem. In some cases, this is because determining what happened in the moments leading up to the accident is difficult to impossible, given the injuries sustained by the parties or a lack of available evidence. In other cases, however, it may be relatively easy to determine who was at fault for the accident, but proving that they can be held legally responsible can be an issue.

Government Immunity

Accidents involving a government employee can present particular difficulties for victims. This is because as a general rule, government entities and employees are entitled to immunity from personal injury lawsuits. However, in some situations, government immunity does not apply to an employee’s actions. For example, if the government employee is not acting within the scope of their employment, immunity may not attach. Similarly, if a government employee’s actions are intentional or especially reckless, immunity may not apply. Determining whether immunity attaches is highly dependent upon the surrounding circumstances of the accident.

Arkansas Court of Appeals Decision Illustrates the Importance of Naming All Potentially Liable Parties in a Personal Injury Lawsuit

April 8, 2017 | Paul Pfeifer

Earlier this year, the Arkansas Court of Appeals issued a written opinion in a motorcycle accident case that was brought by a man who was injured when an overhead cable was accidentally pulled down by a passing tractor. The issue presented to the court was whether the owner of the wooden poles that held the cable could be held liable to the plaintiff for his injuries. Ultimately, the court determined that the owner of the poles did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s case was dismissed.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was riding a motorcycle behind a tractor on a rural road when the tractor’s sickle caught an overhead cable, pulling it down. The cable fell, causing the plaintiff to lose control of his motorcycle and ultimately resulting in a crash. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against several parties, including the driver of the tractor as well as the company that owned the wooden poles that held up the cable.

The company that owned the poles was not the same company that owned the cable. However, the company that owned the poles had previously entered into an agreement with the cable company to allow the placement of the cables.

Arkansas Court of Appeals Upholds Defense Jury Verdict Despite Defendant’s Admission

April 3, 2017 | Paul Pfeifer

Earlier this month, the Arkansas Court of Appeals issued a written opinion affirming a trial court’s decision to deny all post-trial motions in a car accident case in which the jury found in favor of the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant admitted that he caused the accident. Ultimately, the court held that due to the conflicting evidence presented, the jury was free to find that any injuries the plaintiff sustained were not caused by the defendant’s negligence.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a rear-end accident in July 2009. The plaintiff filed a personal injury case against the defendant, who was the motorist who rear-ended the plaintiff. The defendant admitted that he was at fault for causing the accident but claimed that he was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant testified. The plaintiff explained that he was on his way to the gym when he was rear-ended by the plaintiff. He explained that after the collision, he had to “brace” himself to keep his head from hitting the steering wheel. He also reported that his vehicle sustained minor damage in the collision. On the day following the accident, the plaintiff went to the hospital, and a doctor ordered an x-ray. The plaintiff was prescribed painkillers and engaged in a three-month course of physical therapy. The plaintiff was seeking $10,000 in lost wages as well as compensation for his medical expenses.

Accident Victims in Arkansas May Be Prevented from Naming Government Defendants in Personal Injury Lawsuits

March 4, 2017 | Paul Pfeifer

Most car accidents involve the fault of one or more of the parties involved. Generally speaking, anyone injured in a car accident can file a personal injury lawsuit against the driver they feel was responsible for the accident. However, in some cases, an accident may involve not just the fault of one or more of the parties involved but also a negligently designed or poorly maintained roadway. In many states, lawsuits against state and local governments based on poorly designed or maintained roadways are permitted, but Arkansas’ system of government immunity almost completely eliminates a government’s liability in these situations.

Arkansas law does permit an accident victim to file a personal injury lawsuit against another driver they believe to be at fault for the accident causing their injuries. If successful, the injured party can receive compensation for their past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and any pain and suffering caused by the accident.

As it pertains to claims against the government, Arkansas has a very strict system of government immunity. Arkansas government immunity prevents injured parties from filing personal injury cases against the state and local governments except in some very rare situations.

Recovering After an Arkansas Drunk Driving Accident

February 25, 2017 | Paul Pfeifer

It’s common knowledge that drunk driving is against the law. However, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, each year across Arkansas there are approximately 150 deaths caused by drunk driving. For whatever reason, the fact remains that too many drivers do not see a problem with getting behind the wheel after they have had too much to drink.

In Arkansas, not only is it a criminal offense to drive while intoxicated, it can also give rise to civil liability for any damage or injuries caused in a drunk driving accident.

In addition, the Arkansas Legislature has done its part to help the victims of drunk driving accidents obtain financial compensation following an accident by enacting what is commonly known as a “Dram Shop” law. Arkansas’ version of a Dram Shop law, located in Arkansas Code Section 16-126-104, allows for some drunk driving victims to seek financial compensation from the vendor that knowingly sold the drunk driver alcohol. In order for a vendor to be held liable, the victim must prove that the establishment knowingly served someone who was either under the age of 21 or “clearly intoxicated.” In many cases, this is difficult to prove and may require a detailed investigation immediately following the accident.

The Availability of Punitive Damages in Arkansas Personal Injury Cases

February 23, 2017 | Paul Pfeifer

When someone is injured due to the negligence of another party, the injured party is entitled to file a personal injury lawsuit against the person whom they claim is responsible for their injuries. If the accident victim is successful in proving their case, they may be entitled to various types of damages awards, depending on the circumstances of the accident and their injuries.

Most common are compensatory damages, which are designed to make the plaintiff whole again. As the name implies, these damages are meant to compensate a plaintiff for the medical and other expenses, pain, and lost income with being involved in an accident. However, in some cases, punitive damages are also appropriate.

Arkansas Supreme Court Discusses Sole-Remedy Provision of Workers’ Compensation Law, Dismissing Plaintiff’s Appeal

January 5, 2017 | Paul Pfeifer

Last month, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case brought by a woman against her husband’s previous employer, alleging that her husband’s exposure to asbestos while on the job caused the cancer from which he ultimately died. In the case, Hendrix v. Alcoa, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s case because the sole remedy for her loss was through the state’s workers’ compensation program.

The Interplay Between Workers’ Compensation Claims and Personal Injury Claims

When someone is injured on the job due to the negligence of another party, there may be one or more potential claims available to the injured worker or their family. The workers’ compensation program is mandatory for many Arkansas employers and acts as a type of insurance for employers. If an employee is injured on the job, the employee can obtain workers’ compensation benefits without having to establish who was at fault for their injuries. However, workers’ compensation claims are mostly limited to medical expenses and lost wages, and these claims will not include compensation for pain and suffering.

In some situations, an injured worker’s eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits will not prevent that worker from filing a personal injury lawsuit against a negligent third party that caused the worker’s injuries. These “third-party” lawsuits are preferred for many injured workers because the potential recovery amount can be much greater, due to the availability of damages for the worker’s pain and suffering.

Supreme Court of Arkansas Finds State-Appointed Custodian Does Not Have Authority To Enter into a Binding Nursing Home Arbitration Agreement

January 5, 2017 | Paul Pfeifer

In June of last year, the Supreme Court of Arkansas issued a written opinion in a wrongful death case brought by the estate of a woman who died while in the care of the defendant nursing home. In the case, Courtyard Gardens Health and Rehabilitation v. Sheffield, the court was tasked with determining if an arbitration clause contained in a nursing home admission contract was valid when it was signed by an emergency temporary custodian with Adult Protective Services (APS). The court determined that the custodian lacked the authority to consent to arbitration on behalf of the nursing home resident.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in the case, Sheffield, is the administrator of the estate of an elderly woman, Holliman, who died while in the care of the defendant nursing home. Prior to her death, Holliman lived by herself. One day, APS received a complaint about the conditions that Holliman was living in, and an APS worker was sent out to Holliman’s home to check on her well-being.

The APS worker noticed several deficiencies in Holliman’s living situation and petitioned the court to take temporary custody of Holliman in order to find her a better living situation. The petition was granted, and the APS worker was named as Holliman’s custodian. He eventually placed Holliman in the defendant nursing home after signing an admission contract containing an arbitration clause.

Arkansas Nursing Home Successfully Compels Arbitration Despite the Unavailability of the Selected Forum

January 3, 2017 | Paul Pfeifer

Earlier this month, the Arkansas Court of Appeals issued a written opinion that will be of interest to any putative personal injury plaintiff who signed an arbitration agreement. In the case, Rita v. Gruber, the court held that, although the selected forum mentioned in the arbitration agreement contained in a nursing home admission contract was unavailable, the fact that the parties had agreed to arbitrate means that the plaintiff’s claim must proceed through arbitration.

The Facts of the Case

In 2009, the plaintiff helped her father find housing with the defendant nursing home. The plaintiff had power of attorney for her father, and prior to his admission into the defendant nursing home, the plaintiff signed an admission contract. Contained in the contract was a clause agreeing to submit any future claims to arbitration through the National Arbitration Forum (NAF).

In October 2013, the plaintiff’s father died while in the care of the defendant nursing home. In turn, the plaintiff filed medical malpractice and negligence claims against the nursing home. By this time, the NAF was no longer available to take consumer arbitration cases because the NAF was found to have violated several consumer-protection laws when arbitrating claims and another state had suspended the NAF’s ability to take on new cases.

13 fatalities reported in a USA Holiday tour bus crash in California

November 4, 2016 | Paul Pfeifer

This week 13 passengers on a USA Holiday tour bus were killed, and many injured, early this morning on a highway in California when the USA Holiday tour bus ran into the back of an 18-wheeler semi truck at a speed great enough to cause the bus to travel approximately 15 feet inside the 18-wheeler’s trailer, causing significant damage to the bus. The driver was among one of the fatally injured. Firefighters used ladders to remove the passengers through the windows of the bus.

The tour bus had recently traveled to the Red Earth Casino in Thermal, California, and was returning back to Los Angeles, California when the crash happened early this morning. It has been reported that the driver of the tour bus was one of the company’s owners. The USA Holiday tour bus had inspections performed on the bus in 2014, 2015, and 2016, with no mechanical citations reported. According to news reports, the company also had a satisfactory rating for safety.

At this time the investigation into the crash is still ongoing, therefore officials are unclear as of now whether the driver of the bus was speeding, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or whether he fell asleep behind the wheel while driving.