Lewis v. Gardner Engineering Corp.

I believe that the court has overlooked the thrust of the principal argument of appellants on this appeal in applying Smith v. Rodgers, 251 Ark. 994, 477 S.W. 2d 831, to one of appellants’ arguments. The argument which I think has merit is advanced in connection with their points II and III, stated as follows:

II. The defendant, Gardner Engineering Corporation, as a joint venturer, is a “third party” with respect to Gardner Engineering Corporation, as a manufacturer of the hoisting clamp.

III. The defendant should have been estopped from invoking the exclusive remedy provision of the Arkansas…