{ "id": 1891394, "name": "Bennie DANIELS v. John CRAVENS", "name_abbreviation": "Daniels v. Cravens", "decision_date": "1988-12-19", "docket_number": "88-246", "first_page": "388", "last_page": "390", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "297 Ark. 388" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "761 S.W.2d 942" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "229 S.W. 1059", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 Mo. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 805745 ], "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/287/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "246 Ark. 739", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1604170 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/246/0739-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ark. App. 186", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139565 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/10/0186-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ark. App. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6142896 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/10/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 683", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485080 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1944, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0683-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 Ark. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1734252 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1944, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/238/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-410", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 353, "char_count": 4842, "ocr_confidence": 0.914, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.193306775769424e-08, "percentile": 0.5094997816475014 }, "sha256": "317acc044b844084e8f4702dfa1293e8b38769953ca2d9c3649fe2a00eff5d9f", "simhash": "1:eba8adb0fb26afba", "word_count": 767 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:39.933112+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Bennie DANIELS v. John CRAVENS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nThe appellant, Bennie Daniels, brought this negligence and personal injury action against appellee, John Cravens, as a result of a collision between the vehicles each was driving on a highway about six miles outside St. Charles, Arkansas. Daniels was employed by Helena Contracting Co. at the time of the collision, and that company\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, paid substantial benefits to Daniels for the injuries he sustained as a result of the collision with Cravens. Citing Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-410 (1987), Liberty Mutual asserted its right to intervene in Daniels\u2019s tort action against Cravens. Daniels responded acknowledging Liberty Mutual\u2019s entitlement to intervene and stated that he had no objection to the intervention. Cravens also did not interpose an objection to Liberty Mutual\u2019s intervention, but he did contend Liberty Mutual should be limited in its participation at trial. In sum, Cravens objected to Liberty Mutual\u2019s attorney, by argument or examination of witnesses, duplicating or \u201cshoring up\u201d the case presented by Daniels and his attorney. The trial judge disagreed with Cravens\u2019s position, and concluded that, because there were three distinct parties, each could participate fully.\nAfter the trial court\u2019s ruling, the parties\u2019 case proceeded to trial and the jury rendered its verdict apportioning the responsibility for the occurrence between Daniels and Cravens at fifty percent each. Accordingly, the trial judge ordered that Daniels and Liberty Mutual take nothing and that their respective complaints be dismissed with prejudice. Daniels, alone, appeals from the judgment, and having employed new counsel, argues that the trial judge erred in allowing Liberty Mutual to participate in the trial below and in permitting references to the compensation benefits paid Daniels.\nIn affirming this cause, we need only point out that Daniels, in his response below, conceded Liberty Mutual\u2019s right to intervene in the case, and thereupon heavily relied on the testimony of expert witnesses provided by Liberty Mutual. In fact, the only medical doctor testimony produced at trial regarding Daniels\u2019s injury was that of Dr. Samuel Hunter which was introduced via deposition by Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual also called a clinical psychologist to testify regarding Daniels\u2019s employment disability.\nDaniels\u2019s strategy from the outset of this case was to work in tandem with Liberty Mutual. Now, because Daniels is unsatisfied with the outcome of the trial, he attempts to reverse the case relying on Cravens\u2019s objection at trial that Liberty Mutual\u2019s participation should have been limited. Again, Daniels never objected to Liberty Mutual\u2019s participation in the trial or to any references made at trial to the workers\u2019 compensation benefits paid to Daniels.\nIt is well settled in Arkansas that, under the doctrine of invited error, an appellant may not complain on appeal of an erroneous action of a trial court if he had induced or acquiesced in that action. Jones v. Dierks Forests, Inc., 238 Ark. 551, 383 S.W.2d 110 (1944); Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Gilbert, 206 Ark. 683, 178 S.W.2d 73 (1944); Briscoe v. Shoppers News, Inc., 10 Ark. App. 395, 664 S.W.2d 886 (1984); J. I. Case Co. v. Seabaugh, 10 Ark. App. 186, 662 S.W.2d 193 (1983). In addition, this court has long held that it will not review an alleged erroneous ruling or order unless a party makes known to the trial court the action which he desires the court to take or his objection to the action of the court and his grounds therefor. Turkey Express v. Skelton Motor Co., 246 Ark. 739, 439 S.W.2d 923 (1969); see also ARCP Rule 46.\nAs we have already noted, Daniels not only failed to object to Liberty Mutual\u2019s intervention and participation in the trial of this case, but he also actively worked with Liberty Mutual in presenting his case against Cravens to the jury. Under these circumstances, Daniels cannot now complain of Liberty Mutual\u2019s sharing in the presentment of his case and the concomitant references concerning the compensation benefits paid Daniels by Liberty Mutual. Therefore, we affirm.\nDaniels cites State v. Ellison, 287 Mo. 139, 229 S.W. 1059 (1921), for the proposition that Cravens\u2019s objection should inure to Daniels\u2019s benefit. That holding, however, merely provides that, when one of several codefendants makes an objection, it is unnecessary for another to repeat the objection to put himself in a position to base an assignment of error on it on appeal. Here, Daniels, a plaintiff, seeks to benefit from an objection lodged by a defendant, Cravens.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Wilson, Bell & Neal Law Office, for appellant.", "Barrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Bennie DANIELS v. John CRAVENS\n88-246\n761 S.W.2d 942\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 19, 1988\nWilson, Bell & Neal Law Office, for appellant.\nBarrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0388-01", "first_page_order": 424, "last_page_order": 426 }