Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc.
149 Ariz. 130, 1986 Ariz. LEXIS 194, 717 P.2d 434 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that modifies or abolishes a common law substantive defense, such as contributory negligence, may be constitutionally applied to causes of action that arose before the statute's effective date, provided the lawsuit is filed after the statute's effective date, because the right to the defense does not vest until a lawsuit is filed.
Facts:
- On February 21, 1984, A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. delivered PVC pipe to the place of business of J.H. Kelley Construction Company.
- On that same day, Dallas Hall, an employee of Kelley Construction, was injured in an accident involving the PVC pipe.
- Hall alleged his injuries were caused by the negligence of A.N.R. Freight System, Inc.
- A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. denied its own negligence and alleged that Hall was contributorily negligent.
- On August 30, 1984, Arizona’s Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, which established comparative negligence, became effective.
Procedural Posture:
- Dallas Hall filed a personal injury lawsuit against A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
- The lawsuit was filed on September 7, 1984, which was after the effective date of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act.
- The U.S. District Court certified a question of law to the Supreme Court of Arizona concerning the constitutionality of applying the new Act to the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is Arizona's Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, which replaces the common law defense of contributory negligence with comparative negligence, constitutional when applied to an accident that occurred before the Act's effective date but for which a lawsuit was filed after the Act's effective date?
Opinions:
Majority - Gordon, Vice Chief Justice
Yes, the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act is constitutional when applied to accidents occurring before its effective date because a defendant's right to the defense of contributory negligence is a substantive right that does not vest until a lawsuit is filed. The court first addressed whether the Act's comparative negligence provision violated Article 18, § 5 of the Arizona Constitution, which reserves the defense of contributory negligence as a question of fact for the jury. The court held that this constitutional provision is a procedural guarantee about the jury's role, not a substantive guarantee of the common law defense itself, meaning the legislature was free to modify or abolish the defense. Turning to the retroactivity question, the court distinguished between a 'substantive' right and a 'vested' right. While the defense of contributory negligence is a substantive right, it only becomes a vested right—and thus immune from legislative change—when it becomes assertable in court. An affirmative defense becomes assertable upon the filing of a lawsuit. Since Hall's lawsuit was filed after the Act's effective date, A.N.R. Freight System had no vested right to the pre-existing common law rule, only an inchoate or expectant one. Therefore, applying the new statute did not unconstitutionally impair any vested rights.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial clarification in Arizona law regarding the retroactive application of statutes, establishing the filing of a lawsuit as the critical moment when substantive rights and defenses 'vest.' By distinguishing between substantive and vested rights, the court created a clear rule that protects the settled expectations of parties in pending litigation while allowing the legislature to enact reforms that apply to all future lawsuits, irrespective of when the underlying events occurred. This precedent has broad implications beyond tort reform, providing a framework for analyzing the constitutionality of any statute that modifies substantive rights or defenses in civil law.
