Part of Ark. tort reform ruled unconstitutional

Two portions of Arkansas' tort reform law violate the state constitution by stripping away powers granted to the judiciary, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The ruling throws into question parts of the 2003 law aimed at placing caps on punitive damages in civil lawsuits. However, the state's highest court only considered the constitutionality of two questions posed by U.S. District Court Judge J. Leon Holmes _ whether fact finders should assess the liabilities of "nonparties" and what evidence can be presented in the cases.

The court answered "yes" and "yes" in an opinion written by Justice Paul E. Danielson. In regards to having fact finders assess damages, Danielson wrote that would directly conflict with rules set by the high court. The law considers "nonparties" individuals or companies potentially at fault in a civil lawsuit but not directly named in the action or otherwise legally immune, like charities or other organizations.

"The nonparty-fault provision bypasses our 'rules of pleading, practice and procedure' by setting up a procedure to determine the fault of a nonparty and mandating the consideration of that nonparty's fault in an effort to reduce a plaintiff's recovery," Danielson wrote.

In that same vein, the justice wrote that rules governing evidence should be handled by the Supreme Court, not legislators. The 2003 state law limited what kind of evidence can be heard.

"The provision clearly limits the evidence that may be introduced relating to the value of medical expenses," Danielson wrote.

Holmes posed the questions to the Supreme Court as he hears a case involving Darrell Johnson, a Batesville man injured while on the job at an Eastman Chemical Co. plant. In his federal lawsuit, Johnson claimed a "starter bucket" built by Rockwell Automation Inc. powered on when it shouldn't have, despite having a safety switch.

When Johnson tried to pull fuses from the device, electricity arced and caused an explosion, leaving his right hand burned and injuring his nervous system, his lawsuit claims. The suit sought monetary damages for both his medical bills and "pain and suffering past and future."

James McMath, a Little Rock lawyer representing Johnson, said the ruling meant that Rockwell wouldn't be able to try and bring another party into the suit who might be immune. Under that scenario, McMath said, a company could shift the judgment onto an immune party and limit what they'd have to pay.

"It means that we'll get to go to trial against the defendant without the defendant getting to try to blame someone not at the courthouse," McMath said.

David Donovan, a Little Rock lawyer representing Rockwell, said he respected the court's decision.

"It doesn't materially change the defense," Donovan said. "Rockwell's position is their design was safe and not defective."

The 2003 tort reform bill, signed into law by then-Gov. Mike Huckabee, set a $1 million cap on punitive damages in civil lawsuits in Arkansas. That portion of the law still stands under the court's decision Thursday.