2015 Ark. App. 244 ARKANSAS COURT OF DIVISION II No. cv-14-905 GARY STEVE LLOYD APPELLANT PIER WEST PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY APPELLEES KENNETH S. HIXSON, Appellant Gary Steve Lloyd was seriously and perrnanently fall from a second floor common-area balcony of a condominium Bayou Point in Hot Springs, Arkansas. The properry is known Lloyd appeals the entry of summary judgment Property Owners Association ("Pier West") regarding his lawsuit installation and maintenance of the wooden balcony railing.1 The trial court 'Lloyd also filed suit against Hot Springs management company contracted to manage these condominiums), Casualry Company (the insurance company that issued association liabiliry policy on the propeffy), and Deborah Shackleford D4, rhe unir rented by Monda Conner, the residentwho invited Lloyd to Summary judgment was entered in favor of all these APPEALS Opinion Delivered APRIL 1.5,201.5 APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT lNo. cY-1,2-43s-4) HONORABLE MARCIA R. HEARNSBERGER, JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD AND ADDENDUM ORDERED Judge injured as the result of a building located at 100 as Pier'W'est Condominiums. against him and in favor of appellee Pier West allegrng negligence in the found that, as Properry Management, LLC (the properry State Farm Fire and a residential communiry (the ownerof Unit the premises). defendants as well, but Lloyd does
2015 Ark. App. 244 a matter of law, Lloyd's status was that of a licensee, that there conduct on Pier-West's part, that Lloyd failed to produce knowledge of rhe alleged dangerous condition, of a breach of the accompanying dury to a licensee imposed 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 whether an invitee or licensee; (3) That Pier'West's purchase of business assumed a dury of care to third parry invitees such (a) That Pier'West owed a dury to Lloyd who 'We cannot reach the merits of Lloyd's appeal due to addendum. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(aX8XA)(i) to an appellant's brief include the pleadings on specifically identifring the complaint and answer. if any pleading is amended, then the final version must be included in the addendum. A review oflloyd's his second amended complaint, his third amended complaint, third amended complaint. These pleadings were on Pier'W'est's behalf and are necessary for us to that two pages of the second amended complaint are page ofthe third amended complaint. Ifanything material not appeal those summary-judgment orders.was no willful or wanton evidence that Pier West had and that Lloyd failed to present any evidence by Arkansas law. Lloyd posits all penons on the property liabiliry insurance is further evidence that it as Lloyd; and was a public invitee. deficiencies in the record and (2014) requires that the addendum which the circuit court decided each issue, Rule 4-2(aX8XAXi) further provides that and any earlier version incorporated therein brief reveals that he failed to include and Pier'West's answer to the filed prior to the entry ofsummaryjudgment consider this appeal. In addition, we note omitted from the record, as well as one to either parry is omitted from the
t 2015 Ark. App. 244 record, we may direct that a supplemenal record be certified and transmitted. P.-Civ. 6(e) (201a). Lloyd has thirry days to office. Pursuant to Rule 4-2(b)(4), we order Lloyd to 6le seven calendar days ofthe supplemental record from the record to the members ofthe appellate be taken as an exhaustive list of deficiencies; ensure that no other deficiencies exist. See Smith Supplemental record and addendum ordered. Kwanp and GrovsR,JJ., agree. Jim Jackson Law Firm, PA, by: Jim Jackson; Cullen & Co., PLLC, by: Tim Cullen; and Callis L. Childs, PA, by: Callis Childs, for appellant. Elliot Law Firm, by: Jeffrey C. Elliot, for appellee. 3Ark. R. App. file the supplemental record with our clerk's a supplemental addendum within being filed to provide the additional materials court. The materials listed herein are not to appellant should carefully review the rules to u. Lovelace,2ll4Ark. App. 187.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.