## Facts

- Laura Perkins had Wal-Mart rotate the tires on her truck.
- Later the same day, a wheel detached from Perkins’s truck, crossed the center line, and struck Johnny Londagin’s vehicle, injuring him.
- From the accident scene, Perkins called Wal-Mart to complain that the wheel came off right after service.
- Wal-Mart confirmed it had serviced the truck, apologized, said it would “take care of everything,” and arranged or paid for a rental car, towing, and repairs at no cost to Perkins.
- Johnny and Sue Londagin sued Wal-Mart and Perkins, alleging negligent tire service by Wal-Mart proximately caused Johnny’s injuries and Sue’s derivative damages.
- At trial, the Londagins introduced Wal-Mart’s post-accident statements and payments to Perkins as circumstantial evidence of Wal-Mart’s responsibility.
- Wal-Mart objected, arguing the evidence was inadmissible settlement evidence under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 408.
- Perkins was dismissed from the case, and the jury returned a verdict for the Londagins for $135,000.

## Issues

1. Whether Wal-Mart’s apology, promise to “take care of everything,” and payment for towing, rental car, and repairs were inadmissible under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 408 as compromise or offers to compromise when offered to prove Wal-Mart’s liability.
2. Whether the circuit court otherwise erred in rejecting Wal-Mart’s additional appellate challenges to the verdict.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the judgment for the Londagins.
- The court held Rule 408 did not exclude the challenged evidence because Wal-Mart’s conduct was not a compromise of a disputed claim.
- The court found no reversible error on Wal-Mart’s remaining points on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Arkansas Rule of Evidence 408 excludes evidence of furnishing, offering, or promising valuable consideration to compromise a claim when offered to prove liability, invalidity, or amount.
- Rule 408 applies only when there is a “claim” that is disputed as to validity or amount and the consideration is offered to compromise that dispute.
- A party’s immediate, voluntary assumption of responsibility and payment in full, without disputing the claim or negotiating its amount, is not a “compromise” within Rule 408 and may be admitted as evidence of liability in later litigation, including suits by third parties arising from the same incident.
- Negligence may be found where the factfinder concludes the defendant failed to act as a reasonably careful person would under foreseeable risk, and the conduct proximately caused the injury.

## Conclusion

Because Wal-Mart did not dispute Perkins’s complaint and did not attempt to negotiate or trade consideration to settle a contested claim, its post-accident apology and payments were not protected by Rule 408 and were properly admitted; the verdict for the Londagins was affirmed.


Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Londagin, 37 S.W.3d 620 (Ark. 2001)