739 'TURK EY • ENPUESS, INC. v. SKELTON MOTOR -CO., INC, ET AL 5-4902 439 S.W. 2d 923
Opinion Delivered April 21, 1969 [Rehearing denied May 26, 1969.] Appeal & Error—Failure to . Request Ruling or Object Review.— Alleged erroneous ruling or order of the trial court cannot be considered for the first time on appeal. [Ark. Stat. Ann.
§ 27-1762 and § 27-2154 (Repl. 1962).] Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; .Maupin Cum»iings, Judge; affirmed. james 0. Burnett for appellant. .117 ade McAllister (for appellee Phipps d/b/a Law-rence's Garage) and Crouch, Blair, Cypert & Waters (for appellee Skelton Motors). • CONLEY BrED„justice. Appellant Turkey Express, Inc. sued appellees Skelton Motor Co., Inc. and Lawrence K. Phipps d/b/a Lawrence . 's. Garage in tort for damages to appellant's truck and trailer and the turkeys thereon asa_ result of appellees' Alleged negligence in connection witb removal of. appellant's truck: and trailer: from a ditch near. Jane, Missouri. . The jury, which : has been instructed On the contributory negligence law of Mis-souri, found tbe issues in favor of appellees. For reversal, appellant-relies on the-following points:: 1. The trial court erred in_ applying to this litiga-: tion the conflict of laws rule of Lex Loci Belie-ti, or the law of the place of harm. _The .trial court erred r in.not sustaining.the_appellant's objection . that only the law Of Arkansas should be . applied in. this .case.. The appellees contend that appellant is not entitled to prevail here because it obtained no ruling of the trial
740 TURKEY EXPRESS V. SKELTON MOTOR CO. [246 court on the issues now raised nor made any objections to the instructions submitted to the jury. The record shows that pursuant to the Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. 27-2504 (Supp. 1967), Skelton Motor Co., Inc. gave notice of its intent to apply the contributory negligence law of Missouri. Thereafter, appellant filed an instrument called a "reply" as follows: "Comes now the plaintiff, Turkey Express, Inc., and in reply to the motion of Skelton Motor Company, Inc. that the law of the State of Missouri should be applied in the above-styled cause, the plaintiff states as follows, to-wit: (1) That only the law of the State of ArkanT sas should be applied in this case. (2) That the law of Contributory Negligence, specifically Ark. Stat. Ann. §27-1730.1 and 27- 1730.2, is procedural and therefore the law of tbe forum should be applied. (3) That all of the parties to this laysuit are residents of the State of Arkansas and all of the contacts of facts and issues are with the State of Arkansa s. " When this matter came on for trial the testimony was taken and tbe jury was instructed with reference to the law of contributory negligence without objection by appellant and without appellant ever having sought a ruling on its "reply" set out above. By this appeal appellant asks us to review the lex loci clelicti rule applied for many years in transitory tort actions. It argues that the law of the place which had the most significant contacts with the matter in dispute should be applied. See Leflar, Choice-Influencing Con-
ARM] 741 sideration in Conflicts law, 41 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 267 (1966). However, we do not reach appellant's arguments because under our procedure, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1762 and § 27-2154 (Repl. 1962), we will not review an alleged erroneous ruling or order unless a party makes known to the trial court the action which he desires the court to take or his objections to the action of the court and his grounds therefor. Here the record fails to show that appellant requested any such ruling or made any objections to the instructions submitting the issue of contributory negligence. For this reason we affirm the action of the trial court. Affirmed.
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.