Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

LLOYD v. PIER WEST PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, 2015 Ark. App. 244 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Number: inarco20150415017 Visitors: 1
Filed: Apr. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 15, 2015
Summary: KENNETH S. HIXSON , Judge . Appellant Gary Steve Lloyd was seriously and perrnanently injured as the result of a fall from a second floor common-area balcony of a condominium building located at 100 Bayou Point in Hot Springs, Arkansas. The properry is known as Pier'W'est Condominiums. Lloyd appeals the entry of summary judgment against him and in favor of appellee Pier West Property Owners Association ("Pier West") regarding his lawsuit allegrng negligence in the installation and maintenanc
More

Appellant Gary Steve Lloyd was seriously and perrnanently injured as the result of a fall from a second floor common-area balcony of a condominium building located at 100 Bayou Point in Hot Springs, Arkansas. The properry is known as Pier'W'est Condominiums. Lloyd appeals the entry of summary judgment against him and in favor of appellee Pier West Property Owners Association ("Pier West") regarding his lawsuit allegrng negligence in the installation and maintenance of the wooden balcony railing.1 The trial court found that, as a matter of law, Lloyd's status was that of a licensee, that there was no willful or wanton conduct on Pier-West's part, that Lloyd failed to produce evidence that Pier West had knowledge of rhe alleged dangerous condition, and that Lloyd failed to present any evidence of a breach of the accompanying dury to a licensee imposed by Arkansas law. Lloyd posits the following arguments for reversal and remand for trial:

(1) That Pier'West owed a dury of reasonable care to Lloyd; (2) That Pier West's assumption of that duty extends to all penons on the property whether an invitee or licensee; (3) That Pier West's purchase of business liabiliry insurance is further evidence that it assumed a dury of care to third parry invitees such as Lloyd; and (4) That Pier'West owed a dury to Lloyd who was a public invitee.

We cannot reach the merits of Lloyd's appeal due to deficiencies in the record and addendum. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) (2014) requires that the addendum to an appellant's brief include the pleadings on which the circuit court decided each issue, specifically identifring the complaint and answer. Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) further provides that if any pleading is amended, then the final version and any earlier version incorporated therein must be included in the addendum. A review oflloyd's brief reveals that he failed to include his second amended complaint, his third amended complaint, and Pier'West's answer to the third amended complaint. These pleadings were filed prior to the entry ofsummaryjudgment on Pier'W'est's behalf and are necessary for us to consider this appeal. In addition, we note that two pages of the second amended complaint are omitted from the record, as well as one page ofthe third amended complaint. Ifanything material to either parry is omitted from the record, we may direct that a supplemenal record be certified and transmitted. Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 6(e) (201a). Lloyd has thirry days to file the supplemental record with our clerk's office. Pursuant to Rule 4-2(b)(4), we order Lloyd to 6le a supplemental addendum within seven calendar days ofthe supplemental record being filed to provide the additional materials from the record to the members ofthe appellate court. The materials listed herein are not to be taken as an exhaustive list of deficiencies; appellant should carefully review the rules to ensure that no other deficiencies exist. See Smith u. Lovelace, 2014 Ark.App. 187.

Supplemental record and addendum ordered.

Kwanp and GrovsR, JJ., agree.

FootNotes


1. Lloyd also filed suit against Hot Springs Properry Management, LLC (the properry management company contracted to manage these condominiums), State Farm Fire and Casualry Company (the insurance company that issued a residential communiry association liabiliry policy on the propeffy), and Deborah Shackleford (the ownerof Unit D4, rhe unir rented by Monda Conner, the residentwho invited Lloyd to the premises). Summary judgment was entered in favor of all these defendants as well, but Lloyd does not appeal those summary-judgment orders.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer