No Apportionment of Fault Allowed against Arkansas Employer

Yesterday, an Arkansas appellate court affirmed a finding by a county circuit court that held the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, as amended and codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-61-201, et seq. (Supp. 2017) (UCATA), does not allow for the apportionment of fault to a nonparty, such as an employer, who is immune from liability [Industrial Iron Works v. Hodge, 2020 Ark. App. LEXIS 61 (Jan. 29, 2020)]. Accordingly, where the plaintiff employee suffered a traumatic amputation of a portion of his leg and foot in a work-related auger accident, the product manufacturer could not seek a ruling assigning a portion of the blame to the employer, which would have worked so as to reduce the level of fault for which the manufacturer was liable.

Background

In 2014, Hodge sustained serious injuries in a work-related accident while working for his employer. He sought and received extensive workers’ compensation benefits and then filed a products liability case against the manufacturer. The defendant manufacturer filed an Answer indicating that it was seeking contribution, indemnity, and the allocation and apportionment of fault under multiple theories, including Arkansas’ version of the UCATA.

Hodge sought to the strike the UCATA portions of the Answer, contending in relevant part that Arkansas workers’ compensation law did not allow for an assertion of nonparty fault with respect to an immune employer. The defendant manufacturer countered that Arkansas had abandoned joint and several liability and adopted the theory of several liability. Under this theory, the defendant argued, its liability was limited to the amount of damages directly proportional to its percentage of fault. It said, therefore, it was allowed to allocate fault to an immune party, such as the employer.

Trial Court Decision

The circuit court conducted a hearing on the motion to strike. Following the hearing, the court granted the Hodges’ motion to strike the amended answer, concluding that the exclusive remedy provisions of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act precluded the employer from being made a party or referenced in the present action.

Appellate Court Ruling

The appellate court found the language of the UCATA clear and unambiguous. The right to contribution for the allocation of fault applied only to “joint tortfeasors,” and joint tortfeasor was defined as “two (2) or more persons or entities who may have joint liability or several liability in tort for the same injury to person or property, whether or not judgment has been recovered against all or some of them” [Ark. Code Ann. § 16-61-201(1) (emphasis added by Court)].

Stressing that an immune employer was not an entity that could have “joint or several liability in tort” and did not fit within the plain and unambiguous definition of a “joint tortfeasor” or fall within the confines of the allocation of nonparty fault under the UCATA, the Court held the UCATA simply did not allow for the apportionment of fault to an immune nonparty employer. The trial court’s ruling was, therefore, correct.