Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortnegligenceprecedentappealmotionsummary judgmentcase lawappellant
tortappealmotionsummary judgmentwillappellantmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Yount v. Deibert, 282 Kan. 619, 147 P.3d 1065
View Case »
Lourcey v. Estate of Scarlett, 146 S.W.3d 48
View Case »
City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 683
View Case »
Katapodis v. Brooklyn Spectator, Inc., 261 A.D. 988, 27 N.Y.S.2d 472 (Mem)
View Case »
Mullins v. Parkview Hosp., Inc., 830 N.E.2d 45
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Dowty v. Riggs, 2010 Ark. 465, 385 S.W.3d 117

Facts

The claims arose from an incident on October 29, 2004, at the home of Evelyn Riggs, where her son, Perry, shot Gene Dowty in the arm and fired at others present. Karen Dowty and her son, Riggs, were also at the scene but were not physically injured. Perry was charged with several offenses but was acquitted due to mental illness. The Dowtys filed a complaint against Evelyn for negligence and emotional distress, but the court granted summary judgment in favor of Evelyn.

The claims in this case arose from an incident that occurred on October 29, 2004, at the home of Evelyn, who is Karen's mother.

Issue

Whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress and whether Arkansas should recognize this tort.

The appellants contend that the circuit court erred in granting Evelyn's motion for summary judgment because a genuine issue of fact remains as to whether her conduct was willful or wanton.

Rule

Arkansas does not recognize the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress, as established in prior case law.

Arkansas does not recognize the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by affirming that the appellants acknowledged Arkansas's lack of recognition for the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. They argued for a change in precedent, but the court found no compelling reason to overrule existing law, emphasizing the need for stability in legal principles.

This court will not consider arguments on appeal when the party has failed to obtain a ruling from the circuit court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, concluding that the certification order justified a final, appealable order and that Arkansas does not recognize the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

We affirm the circuit court.

Who won?

Evelyn Riggs prevailed in the case because the court upheld the summary judgment, confirming that the claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress were not recognized under Arkansas law.

Evelyn moved for summary judgment on the claims of Karen and Riggs, contending that Arkansas does not recognize the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress and that Karen and Riggs admitted that they had suffered no physical injury.

You must be