# Edmisten v. Bull Shoals Landing

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · January 11, 2012 · 2012 Ark. App. 44

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5112230

## Case

- **Full name:** Matthew L. EDMISTEN v. BULL SHOALS LANDING & AIG Domestic Claims, Inc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** January 11, 2012
- **Citations:** 2012 Ark. App. 44; 388 S.W.3d 416; 2012 Ark. App. LEXIS 112
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Abramson
- **Judges:** Abramson, Agree, Brown, Glover, Hart, Hoofman, Martin, Pittman, Robbins, Vaught
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5112230

## Opinion text

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge, dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent for the same reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in the companion case, Prock v. Bull Shoals Landing, 2012 Ark. App. 47 , 390 S.W.3d 78 . The evidence of a direct causal link between drug use and the injury is even more tenuous in this case because Edmis-ten was merely holding the [10barrel top with channel locks (pliers) when the second barrel exploded. His co-worker Prock was generally responsible for welding and using cutting torches for Bull Shoals Landing; Prock operated the acetylene torch to open the barrels on the day of the explosion. Prock was more in charge of completing the assigned task of opening the two barrels, including selecting them, whereas Edmisten was only his helper. Crucially, there was simply no evidence that Edmisten’s drug use caused the explosion.
VAUGHT, C.J., and HOOFMAN, J., join in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5112230. Public record. Not legal advice.