Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., No. 08-1009.
In February 2004, Darrell Johnson, an employee of Eastman Chemical Company, was injured while working on an Allen-Bradley starter bucket. The starter bucket was designed, manufactured, and supplied to Eastman by Rockwell Automation. Johnson brought suit in federal court, alleging that the safety interlock on the starter bucket was designed, manufactured, and supplied in a defective condition. Because of the defect, the safety interlock became electrically powered when it should not have, which caused Johnson’s injuries.
During the course of litigation, Rockman noted it would rely on provisions of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003 (“CJRA”). First, Rockman filed a notice of non-party fault under Ark. Code Ann. 16-55-202, naming Eastman as a nonparty at fault for the accident. Under this provision of the CJRA, the jury would be allowed to apportion fault between the named party, Rockman, and the unnamed party, Eastman. Second, Rockman sought enforcement of Ark. Code Ann. 16-55-212(b) to limit evidence of Johnson’s medical treatment to the amounts actually paid by Johnson or on behalf of Johnson. Johnson was enrolled in a medical plan, which negotiated with Johnson’s medical providers to pay an amount less than the full costs originally charged.
The parties filed a joint motion for certification of these issues in federal court, which was granted. The federal court certified them to the Arkansas Supreme Court. The court accepted the certification.
As to Ark. Code Ann. 16-55-202, the court agreed with Johnson that the provision established a procedure that conflicted with the court’s rules of pleading, practice and procedure in violation of Article 4, Section 2 and Amendment 80, Section 3 of the Arkansas Constitution. The court further stated the following:
[W]e take this opportunity to note that so long as a legislative provision dictates procedure, that provision need not directly conflict with our procedural rules to be unconstitutional.
Because the provision is procedural in nature, the Court held it offended the principles of separation of powers because the power to dictate procedure was granted to the courts.
Similarly, the court struck Ark. Code Ann. 16-55-212(b) because “the plain language of the medical-costs provision reveals that the instant statute promulgates a rules of evidence,” which fall within the court’s purview. Accordingly, the Court also held that this provision offended the principles of separation of powers.
Jodie,
Great post. Very interesting issues. I guess this is what happens when you make the Arkansas Supreme Court angry.
In NJ, there is no necessity to name an “at fault” party. Generally, a defendant includes a separate defense stating that if there is any fault, it lies with another party not under their control. No need to name the other party(s)
I found the basis for the court’s decision interesting. How is the relationship between the Arkansas Supreme Court and Legislature?
We have the same defense in Arkansas, but tort reform allowed the non-party’s fault to be considered by the jury. The legislature stated that it wanted defendants (particularly medical defendants) to be responsible for only their share of liability (in an effort to keep physicians in the state). Our tort reform did three things: (1) eliminated joint and several liability, (2) created a mechanism for non-party fault to be considered by juries, and (3) limited recovery of damages to only those damages actually paid by plaintiffs or on behalf of plaintiffs.
Our supreme court is generally very deferential to the legislature, but the court guards its territory. In the opinion, the court lists several other laws that have been struck down for the same reason. There were a lot of good arguments on both sides of these issues, so I was suprised by the ruling and suprised that the court limited its reasoning to separation of powers only.
Great post. Interestingly, many other courts have made similar rulings with respect to other tort reform laws. http://tinyurl.com/dztfm6 It strikes me that such laws are not only constitutionally questionable, but unnecessarily clogging our court dockets. Really, we should just do away with them and let people have their day in court–let juries decide, not legislatures.
Thanks for the feedback! I think a lot of people agree with you.
[...] lately with the splitter on my upstairs TV and splitters reminds me of our next post, this one by Jodie Hill on a recent Arkansas Supreme Court decision regarding separation of powers. Me, I am just impressed [...]
I was involed in an auto accident in April 2006 and the doctor just realeased me Jan 09. I have a total 0f 128000.00 in medical bills and they are saying i can only show about 60000. Because that is what was paid due to tort laws in Arkansas. Does this tort law provision ruled unconstituional on total medical expenses effect my situation? Would I now be able to show the full 128000.oo? Just curious thanks Mike
It might affect you. You should follow up your attorney regarding whether the full amount can be claimed. He or she will have access to all of the information relevant to your case and will be able to say for sure.
This was such an interesting article. Thank you. Im a law student and really enjoyed reading it. One thing I am wondering though — what will defense do attys now? Since there is no joint and several liability, how will juries hold a defendant liable for their negligence when it appears after this decision that you cannot add a non-party to the verdict form and apportion fault?
Defense attorneys have always been able to point the finger at the “empty chair.” Without a non-party on the verdict form, defense attorneys will return to focusing on the causation element of negligence. Even if a jury feels like a defendant some wrong, but didn’t cause all of the injury, the jury can find that the defendant caused 75% (or some other figure) of the harm. Without a verdict form allowing them to apportion fault, though, the jury has to do this math somewhere else, and the attorneys won’t know how the jury reached its verdict (unless they track down individual members of the jury to ask).
Thanks for the comment!
Thank you for your great work in putting this together! This blog is above and beyond others i have read on this topic. Thank you very much for your help in helping me get to grips with this subject.
Thanks! I’ve also written a law review article on the subject and hope to post it on my blog soon.