Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-201 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Recent Developments, 56 Ark. L. Rev. 703 (2003).

Legislative Note, Arkansas's Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003: Who's Cheating Who?, 57 Ark. L. Rev. 651.

Note, To Truly Reform We Must Be Informed: Davis v. Parham, the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and the Constitutionality of Tort Reform in Arkansas, 59 Ark. L. Rev. 781.

Phantom Parties and Other Practical Problems with the Attempted Abolition of Joint and Several Liability, 60 Ark. L. Rev. 437.

Samuel T. Waddell, Comment: Examining the Evolution of Nonparty Fault Apportionment in Arkansas: Must a Defendant Pay More Than Its Fair Share?, 66 Ark. L. Rev. 485 (2013).

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2003 Arkansas General Assembly, Practice, Procedure, and Courts, Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 442.

Sizing Up a Multi-Party Tortfeasor Suit in Arkansas: A Tale of Two Laws — How Fault Is, and Should Be, Distributed, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 251.

Sevawn Foster, Note: Constitutional Law — Arkansas’s Current Procedural Rulemaking Conundrum: Attempting to Quell the Political Discord, 37 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 105 (2014).

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

Allegedly injured driver brought suit against another motorist, who then brought suit against a third party; the jury determined that the third party was 100 percent at fault. The allegedly injured driver attacked the constitutionality of this section and § 16-55-212; however, the supreme court refused to consider the arguments because the supreme court considered the matter to be moot. Shipp v. Franklin, 370 Ark. 262, 258 S.W.3d 744 (2007).

Construction.

Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA), § 16-55-201 et seq., pertains to fault apportionment in a general way, and the Arkansas Comparative Fault Act, § 16-64-122, specifically defines fault and identifies whose fault can be apportioned. Because these two provisions address the same subject matter, it is reasonable to conclude that the general terms of the CJRA are intended to be subject to the specific terms of the Arkansas Comparative Fault Act. Billings v. Aeropres Corp., 522 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (E.D. Ark. 2007).

Civil Justice Reform Act, § 16-55-201 et seq., can not be interpreted to permit a jury to apportion fault in a tort suit to an immune nonparty employer because doing so would render the statute unconstitutional: (1) such an interpretation would violate Ark. Const., Art. 4, § 2, which bars the state legislature from encroaching on the Arkansas Supreme Court's authority to supervise court procedure; and (2) such an interpretation would violate the employer's fundamental constitutional rights because § 11-9-105(a), the exclusivity provision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Law, § 11-9-101 et seq., deprives courts of subject matter jurisdiction over employers and protects employers from liability with regard to claims arising from a covered worker's employment-related injuries. Billings v. Aeropres Corp., 522 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (E.D. Ark. 2007).

Conversion does not necessarily involve damage to property, which would bring it within the reach of the statute and therefore, the Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003 (CJRA), codified at §§ 16-55-201 — 16-55-220, does not automatically apply to actions under § 18-60-102; the CJRA clearly evinces an intent to alter the common law regarding joint and several liability for the causes of action listed, such as personal injury or property damage, but it does not, however, display such an intent regarding causes of action involving the conversion of property, and thus, the trial court did not err in finding the company, owner, and related individual jointly and severally liable with the business and business owner and with each other for the value of the landowner's timber. Shamlin v. Quadrangle Enters., 101 Ark. App. 164, 272 S.W.3d 128 (2008).

This section plainly provides that liability is to be apportioned with regard to “each defendant.” Where there is only one defendant, this section is inapplicable. ProAssurance Indem. Co. v. Metheny, 2012 Ark. 461, 425 S.W.3d 689 (2012).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking the hospital's third-party complaint against the rehabilitation center because the hospital did not have a cause of action against the rehabilitation center under this section as it did not create a cause of action. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr. v. Shelton, 2013 Ark. 38, 425 S.W.3d 761 (2013), superseded by statute as stated in, J-McDaniel Constr. Co. v. Dale E. Peters Plumbing Ltd., 2014 Ark. 282, 436 S.W.3d 458 (2014).

When homeowners sued a general contractor, who sought contribution and indemnity from subcontractors, the Civil Justice Reform Act, § 16-55-201 et seq., abolishing joint liability, did not destroy the contribution claims because (1) Acts 2013, No. 1116, provided that the claim still existed, and (2) Act 1116 applied retroactively, as Act 1116 was remedial and procedural. J-McDaniel Constr. Co. v. Dale E. Peters Plumbing Ltd., 2014 Ark. 282, 436 S.W.3d 458 (2014).

The language of this section is clear; it speaks in terms of the allocation of fault among the “defendants” to the action but is silent as to the allocation of nonparty fault. Instead, the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, § 16-61-201 et seq., addresses the allocation of nonparty fault and it does not allow for the apportionment of fault to an immune nonparty employer. Indus. Iron Works, Inc. v. Hodge, 2020 Ark. App. 56 (2020).

Jury Instructions.

In a medical negligence case that was brought against a liability insurer after a surgeon operated on the wrong side of the patient's brain, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to submit non-model jury instructions that would have required the jury to apportion liability to parties who were not defendants; the circuit court properly instructed the jury to allocate the fault of the hospital where the surgery was performed only to the insurer. ProAssurance Indem. Co. v. Metheny, 2012 Ark. 461, 425 S.W.3d 689 (2012).

Necessary Party.

Trial court did not err by finding that the rehabilitation center was not a necessary or indispensable party under Ark. R. Civ. P. 19 because the presence of the rehabilitation center was not indispensable to the determination of the hospital's separate liability under the Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr. v. Shelton, 2013 Ark. 38, 425 S.W.3d 761 (2013), superseded by statute as stated in, J-McDaniel Constr. Co. v. Dale E. Peters Plumbing Ltd., 2014 Ark. 282, 436 S.W.3d 458 (2014).