{
  "id": 1895777,
  "name": "Michael SIMPSON and Janetta Brock Simpson v. Danny HURT and Budget Transmission, Inc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Simpson v. Hurt",
  "decision_date": "1987-12-07",
  "docket_number": "87-202",
  "first_page": "41",
  "last_page": "44",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "294 Ark. 41"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "740 S.W.2d 618"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "275 Ark. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1753693
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/275/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 Ark. 70",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1675946
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/262/0070-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 Ark. 8",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1742297
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/281/0008-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 409,
    "char_count": 5286,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.927,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.2084963834702657e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8663227083895625
    },
    "sha256": "63c1353e4096ae59d79f9dd1f77c07871c83178f9ce3703a13916245e7cac0fc",
    "simhash": "1:56c2903739235d90",
    "word_count": 881
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:12:05.889486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Michael SIMPSON and Janetta Brock Simpson v. Danny HURT and Budget Transmission, Inc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Steele Hays, Justice.\nThis is an appeal from a defendant\u2019s verdict in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. Appellants are Mr. and Mrs. Michael Simpson. Appellees are Danny Hurt and Budget Transmissions, Inc. The collision occurred when the Simpsons turned onto Phyllis Street in North Little Rock as Danny Hurt was backing from a parking area of Budget Transmissions, Inc. The testimony of the Simpsons and Hurt was conflicting on the issue of who was at fault and the jury resolved that question in favor of the defendants by a vote of eleven to one. The Simpsons have appealed from the adverse verdict, contending that the trial court erred in admitting over their objection evidence of obscene remarks allegedly made by the Simpsons immediately after the collision, and in refusing to instruct the jury in accordance with AMI 2203, aggravation of preexisting injuries. We affirm the judgment.\nDanny Hurt testified that \u201cRight after the wreck, I got out and both of them jumped out of the car, screaming and yelling. Mr. Simpson said, \u2018Didn\u2019t you see me coming, you mother f- \u2014 r,\u2019 and she said it too, not just Mr. Simpson. She was jumping around, acting crazy. I got out of there and got my dad. I got my dad, had him come out there.\u201d While Mr. Simpson denied using obscenities, he testified that this was the third accident he had been involved in, that he was tired of people running into him and he was \u201cvery upset\u201d following the collision. He acknowledged apologizing before leaving the scene. Mrs. Simpson\u2019s testimony was essentially the same.\nThe prejudicial import of the language attributed to the Simpsons is self-evident. However, we cannot say it is so lacking in relevance that the trial judge abused his discretion in receiving it. The Simpsons were claiming extensive injuries and their actions, demeanor and behavior immediately following the impact casts some light on their claims. The trial court has discretion in determining the relevance of evidence [Clawson v. Rye, 281 Ark. 8, 661 S.W.2d 354 (1983); Riegler v. Riegler, 262 Ark. 70, 553 S.W.2d 37 (1977)] and in gauging its probative value against unfair prejudice. A.R.E. Rule 403. While these remarks, if made, are plainly inflammatory, we are not prepared to adopt a rule which would effectively immunize litigants from the consequences of their own conduct when it is otherwise germane. A.R.E. Rule 803(1), (2), (3).\nSecondly, the Simpsons maintain that, having been injured in previous collisions, they were entitled to AMI 2203, which told the jury it should consider \u201cthe full extent of any injury sustained, even though the degree of injury is found by you to have proximately resulted from the aggravation of a condition that already existed and that predisposed Michael Simpson (or Janetta Simpson) to injury to a greater extent than another person.\u201d It was not obligatory on the trial court to give the instruction. Neither the Simpsons nor their medical experts testified that their present complaints were the result of an aggravation of earlier injuries. Dr. G. Morrison Henry treated Mrs. Simpson and related her symptoms to the accident with Hurt. (\u201cI think the accident caused all of this.\") Dr. Jon Harrol Dodson testified about Mr. Simpson\u2019s injuries, i.e., \u201cI felt this was a new injury, as opposed to a recurrence of the injury I had treated him for in the past.\u201d And, elsewhere, \u201cIn my opinion, he had recovered completely from that prior accident and he had a new injury on that day.\u201d (Our emphasis.) With respect to Mrs. Simpson, Dr. Dodson said, \u201cIn my opinion, she had a complete recovery from the prior accident at that time.\u201d\nThe Simpsons rely entirely on a conjectural response by Dr. Dodson to a question by plaintiffs counsel, \u201cDoes a person who has had back injuries in the past, would that predispose them, or make them more susceptible to a back injury again?\u201d To which the witness answered, \u201cYes, it can.\u201d In view of the decisive medical testimony relating the entirety of the plaintiffs\u2019 complaints to the current accident and the absence of any testimony from either Mr. or Mrs. Simpson suggesting aggravation as an issue, we hardly think it was compulsory on the trial court to give AMI 2203 based on the abstract response quoted above. In fact, when the instruction was being discussed in chambers, the court asked counsel directly if he wanted to claim preexisting condition. He answered, \u201cI want to claim that this is a new injury, but that\u2019s a possibility and there\u2019s circumstantial evidence, since they are saying, \u2018my back was injured in the same place,\u2019 that their prior injury may have had some effect on this.\u201d\nWe believe the instruction as given, including AMI 2202, telling the jury in fixing the amount of a recovery to consider the nature, extent, duration and permanency of any injury was sufficient under the proof. Baxter v. Grobmeyer Bros. Construc tion Co., 275 Ark. 400, 631 S.W.2d 265 (1982).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Steele Hays, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gary Eubanks and Associates, by: James Gerard Schulze, for appellant.",
      "Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, P.A., by: Beverly A. Rowlett, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael SIMPSON and Janetta Brock Simpson v. Danny HURT and Budget Transmission, Inc.\n87-202\n740 S.W.2d 618\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 7, 1987\nGary Eubanks and Associates, by: James Gerard Schulze, for appellant.\nHuckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, P.A., by: Beverly A. Rowlett, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0041-01",
  "first_page_order": 65,
  "last_page_order": 68
}