“The trouble with [control] tests is that commonly both employers have a measure of control and the business of both is being done.”
How later courts described this case
- “The trouble with [control] tests is that commonly both employers have a measure of control and the business of both is being done.”
- "I would hope that the possible changes discussed in this opinion [i.e. the adoption of a clear and convincing standard for punitive damages] might be brought before this court in an adversarial manner .... It is a matter which we have never addressed."
- discussing line between gross negligence and wanton/willful conduct in the context of automobile accidents
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully submit the majority reverses this judgment for a new trial on a mistaken assumption that because testimony of some medical experts was undisputed, it was incumbent on the trial judge, as fact-finder, to accept such evidence. That is not the law. The testimony of medical experts, like that of other experts, is not binding on the fact-finder, however reliable such evidence might seem. The fact-finder may accept or reject all or any part of the testimony of expert witnesses. The Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Byrd, Adm’x., 197 Ark. 152 , 122 S.W.2d 569 (1938). “Even when several competent experts concur in their opinions and no opposing expert evidence is offered, the jury is still bound to decide the issue upon its own fair judgment.” Western Union Telegraph Company v. Turner, 190 Ark. 97 , 77 S.W.2d 633 (1935).
It is clear the trial judge in this case did not accept the medical opinion that the expenses incurred in connection with Mr. Yancey’s cardiac complaints were attributable to the initial trauma or to the subsequent treatment of other injuries. The judgment should be affirmed.
Brown, J., joins in this dissent.