Appendix D Model Appellee's Brief

• Library: Handling Appeals in Arkansas (2021 Ed.)

APPENDIX D MODEL APPELLEE'S BRIEF CV 14-698 IN THE ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

CALVIN IVORY APPELLANT

V.

WOODRUFF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORP. APPELLEE

Case No. CV 14-698

On Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lee County, Arkansas Honorable L.T. Simes, II, Circuit Judge APPELLEE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ABSTRACT, BRIEF, AND SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM

James C. Baker (Ark. Bar # 86009)

baker@fridayfirm. com

Tory H. Lewis (Ark. Bar # 2009213)

tlewis@fridayfirm.com

Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP

400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000

Little Rock, AR 72201-3522

Telephone: (501) 376-2011

Facsimile: (501) 376-2147

Attorneys for Woodruff Electric

Cooperative Corp.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

POINTS ON APPEAL..............................................................................................iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................v

SUPPLEMENTAL ABSTRACT..............................................................Supp Ab 1

Excerpts of the Deposition of Carl Horton, February 22, 2013.................................................................................Supp Ab 1

Excerpts of the Deposition of Calvin Ivory, February 22, 2013.................................................................................Supp Ab 6

ARGUMENT.....................................................................................................Arg 1

I. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF WOODRUFF ELECTRIC BECAUSE WOODRUFF ELECTRIC DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT IVORY FROM THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY A SQUIRREL.......................................Arg 1

II. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF WOODRUFF ELECTRIC BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR IS INAPPLICABLE...........................................................Arg 8

CONCLUSION................................................................................................Arg 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE........................................................................Arg 16

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE...............................................................Arg 17

SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (R. 7 - R. 8)................Supp Add 1

Exhibit 1: Excerpts of the Deposition of Carl Horton (R. 9 - R. 17).............................................................................See Supp Ab 1

Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (R. 27 - R. 28).....................................................................................Supp Add 3

Exhibit 1: Excerpts of the Deposition of Carl Horton (R. 29 - R. 34)...........................................................................See Supp Ab 1

Exhibit 2: Excerpts of the Deposition of Calvin Ivory (R. 35 - R. 46)...........................................................................See Supp Ab 6

POINTS ON APPEAL

I. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF WOODRUFF ELECTRIC BECAUSE WOODRUFF ELECTRIC DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT IVORY FROM THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY A SQUIRREL.

Gowen v. Willenborg, 366 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. App. 1963)

Ufnal v. Cattaraugus Cnty., 463 N.Y.S.2d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

II. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF WOODRUFF ELECTRIC BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR IS INAPPLICABLE.

Sw. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Deshazo, 199 Ark. 1078, 138 S.W.2d 397 (1940)

Ark. Power & Light Co. v. Butterworth, 222 Ark. 67, 258 S.W.2d 36 (1953)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Alexander v. Chapman, 299 Ark. 126, 771 S.W.2d 744 (1989)..............................11

Ark. Power & Light Co. v. Butterworth, 222 Ark. 67, 258 S.W.2d 36 (1953)...................................................................................................................9-10

Ark. Power & Light Co. v. Lum, 222 Ark. 678, 262 S.W.2d 920 (1953)..................................................................................................................... 6-8

Brantley v. Oak Grove Power Co., No. 10-12-00135-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9888 (Tex. App. Nov. 29, 2012).........................................3

Chiles v. Ft. Smith Comm'n Co., 139 Ark. 489, 216 S.W. 11 (1919)...............11-12

Christmas v. Exxon Mobile Corp., 2011-CT-01311-SCT (Miss. 2014) (en banc)...........................................................................................2-3

Clark v. Transcon. Ins. Co., 359 Ark. 340, 197 S.W.3d 449 (2004).....................7-8

Early v. Crockett, 2014 Ark. 278, 436 S.W.3d 141...................................................1

Gowen v. Willenborg, 366 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. App. 1963)........................................4

Hanrahan v. Hometown Am., LLC, 90 So.3d 915 (Fla. Diet. Ct. App. 2012)..........................................................................................3

Kowalski v. Rose Drugs of Dardanelle, Inc. , 2011 Ark. 44, 378 S.W.3d 109..........................................................................................................7

Lewis v. State, 110 Ark. 204, 161 S.W. 154 (1913)..................................................2

Nicholson v. Smith, 986 S.W.2d 54 (Tex. App. 1999)..............................................3

Riley v. Champion Int'l Corp., 973 F. Supp. 634 (E.D. Tex. 1997)..........................3

Roberts v. Brewer, 276 So.2d 574 (Ala. 1973)..........................................................3

Schubert v. Target Stores, Inc., 2010 Ark. 466, 369 S.W.3d 717...................8-9, 13

Sickman v. United States, 184 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1950)...........................................3

Sw. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Deshazo, 199 Ark. 1078, 138 S.W.2d 397 (1940)...................................................................................................................9-13

State v. Bartee, 894 S.W.2d 34 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994)...............................................2

State v. Mallory, 73 Ark. 236, 83 S.W. 955 (1904) ................................................... 2

Ufnal v. Cattaraugus Cnty., 463 N.Y.S.2d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)...............4-6

United States v. Shauver, 214 F. 154 (E.D. Ark. 1914).............................................2

Wamser v. City of St. Petersburg, 339 So.2d 244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)..........................................................................................3

Statutes

Ark. Code Ann. § 15-43-104 (2014)........................................................................2

Secondary Sources

Black's Law Dictionary 619 (6th ed. 1990)...............................................................2

SUPPLEMENTAL ABSTRACT Excerpts of the Deposition of Carl Horton February 22, 2013 R. 9 - R. 17

Counsel for the Plaintiff

Louis A. Etoch

Counsel for the Defendant

James C. Baker

MR. HORTON: It is one of our goals to provide safe electrical service. We send out safety messages in publications, radio ads, and other avenues of communication to promote safety. We warn [members] to keep a safe distance from power lines and generally respect power lines because there is voltage going through the lines that cannot be seen otherwise.

In rural areas, most Woodruff Electric power lines are fed to a home through a pole. The lower voltage, secondary line goes to the home; high voltage lines are not built close to a home.

I know what happened to Mr. [Calvin] Ivory's home. To the best of my knowledge, the fire burned across the lot next to him, burned the grassy area on the north side of his home, and then burned his home. I have been out there to look at it [since the fire]. I contacted our insurance company and generated a report based on what I observed. I also made conclusions about how the fire occurred. I collected reports from those who responded to the fire—Charles Hill, Jr., who was the district manager, Johnny Criss, and Jamie Flowers. R. 10. I do not know if I had their written reports before I reached my conclusion. R. 11.

The fire to Mr. Ivory's house was caused when a squirrel got on the transformer, created a fault current, and caused a line to burn down and start the grass fire. The burned line fell from the pole to the ground, dropping molten metal. We know a squirrel caused the fire because we found the squirrel on site. Electrical companies know that squirrels can cause a fault current, which is basically a direct short from the high voltage [wire] to the ground [wire]. Sometimes we try to warn the public about what can cause power outages, such as a squirrel. R. 12. It is pretty common for a squirrel to cause an outage and be killed. Those outages sometimes cause the power lines to spark, and they can burn and fall to the ground.

...