Page:Mendoza v. WIS International, Inc.pdf/16

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Cite as 2016 Ark. 157

Reform Act, it noted that Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-55-202 "established its own procedure by which the fault of a nonparty shall be litigated." 2009 Ark. 241, at 8, 308 S.W.3d at 141. In essence, the substantive right to have fault apportioned already existed, and the legislature unconstitutionally invaded the province of the courts to prescribe how the parties' relative fault may be proved in a court of law. In contrast, through section 27-37- 703, the legislature has expressed its intention that its requirement that motorists use seat belts shall not be a basis for diminishing an injured person's recovery of damages in a simple motor- vehicle negligence case, regardless of how the case is tried. Accordingly, because section 27- 37-703 is substantive law, it does not offend the separation-of-powers clause in article 4, section 2 of the Arkansas Constitution.

I am mindful that the plain language of section 27-37-703 proscribes admitting into evidence a party's nonuse of seat belts in a civil case. I am likewise mindful that the Rockwell court also struck down the medical-costs provision of the Civil Justice Reform Act, which stated as follows:

Any evidence of damages for the costs of any necessary medical care, treatment, or services received shall include only those costs actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff or which remain unpaid and for which the plaintiff or any third party shall be legally responsible.

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-212(b) (Supp. 2013). The Rockwell court reasoned,

It is undisputed that the rules of evidence are "rules of pleading, practice and procedure." Moreover, we have held that the rules of evidence are rules falling within this court's domain. See Ricarte v. State, 290 Ark. 100, 717 S.W.2d 488 (1986). Our review of the plain language of the medical-costs provision reveals that the instant statute promulgates a rule of evidence. Here, the provision clearly limits the evidence that may be introduced relating to the value of medical expenses to the amount of

16