Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 456 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-25-481 Opinion Delivered September 30, 2026 SPENCER LEE JEFFERSON APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 35CV-21-471] V. HONORABLE ROBERT H. WYATT, JR., SCOTT EQUIPMENT COMPANY, LLC; JUDGE AND DOES 1–5 APPELLEES AFFIRMED KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge Appellant Spencer Lee Jefferson (appellant or Jefferson) appeals after the Jefferson County Circuit Court granted summary judgment and dismissed appellant’s complaint in favor of appellees Scott Equipment Company, LLC (Scott Equipment), and Does 1 through 5 (collectively appellees). On appeal, Jefferson argues that the record does not support the circuit court’s grant of Scott Equipment’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm. I. Relevant Facts Jefferson was employed as a pipefitter by a paper mill, Twin Rivers Paper Company (Twin Rivers). During his employment, Jefferson received some training and was allowed to operate a Terex RT 230 thirty-ton mobile crane.1 Scott Equipment provided maintenance services on the Terex crane for Twin Rivers. Jefferson alleged that on August 16, 2018, while he was operating the Terex crane, the braking system on the crane malfunctioned, and he was forced to jump out of the crane. Jefferson sustained multiple injuries, including a broken leg and ribs, and underwent numerous surgeries to address his injuries. Just shy of three years later, on July 29, 2021, Jefferson filed his complaint against Scott Equipment2 and Does 1 through 5. Jefferson alleged that Scott Equipment and Does 1 through 5 had serviced the crane, including the brake system, most recently on August 2, 2018,3 only fourteen days before the brake failure. Jefferson further alleged the following: 9. That on or about August 16, 2018, Plaintiff, SPENCER LEE JEFFERSON, was operating a Terex RT230 30-ton crane at Twin Rivers Paper Company located at 1701 Jefferson Parkway in the City of Pine Bluff, County of Jefferson, and State of Arkansas when the brake system failed due to the aforementioned crane being improperly served and repaired. The braking system failure forced Plaintiff, SPENCER LEE JEFFERSON, to jump to safety out of said crane which resulted in severe and permanent injuries mentioned below. 10. That it was then and there that the Defendants, SCOTT EQUIPMENT COMPANY, LLC, ROY K. SMITH, and DOES 1 through 5 had a duty to exercise ordinary care in properly maintaining and servicing the equipment and cranes including the Terex RT230 30-ton crane so the cranes could be operated in a reasonably safe manner for the use and the exercise of ordinary care of people operating the cranes whom the entity intended and permitted to operate the cranes 1 Jefferson testified that at the time of the accident complained of herein, which occurred in August 2018, he had been operating a crane about two times a week since he started his training in May 2018. 2 Jefferson also filed suit against Roy K. Smith, but Jefferson voluntarily dismissed Smith from this action on December 17, 2021. 3 The actual service date of August 2, 2018, was gleaned from later documents obtained during discovery. 2 in a manner in which and at such times as is reasonably foreseeable that the cranes would be used. 11. That the cranes including the Terex RT230 30-ton crane were not reasonably safe and Defendants, SCOTT EQUIPMENT COMPANY, LLC, ROY K. SMITH, and DOES 1 through 5, prior to the injury, failed to take measures and service the aforementioned to remedy or protect against such hazardous, unsafe, and dangerous conditions. 12. That it was then and there the duty of the Defendants, SCOTT EQUIPMENT COMPANY, LLC, ROY K. SMITH, and DOES 1 through 5, to exercise reasonable care, and they were negligent in one or more of the following ways: a. Allowed an unsafe and dangerous condition to exist on the Terex RT230 30- ton crane; and/or b. Failed to maintain, inspect, service, and repair the braking system on the Terex RT230 30-ton crane; and/or c. Ignored prior complaints about the Terex RT230 30-ton crane’s braking system; and/or d. Failed to warn Twin Rivers Paper Company employees about the dangers with the Terex RT230 30-ton crane’s braking system; and/or e. Allowed a hazard to exist in the Terex RT230 30-ton crane’s braking system; and/or f. Failed to maintain and service the Terex RT230 30-ton crane in a proper manner; and/or g. Failed to inspect the Terex RT230 30-ton crane; and/or h. Failed to take the Terex RT230 30-ton crane out of service due to its braking system failure; and/or i. Failed to maintain, inspect, service, and repair the steering wheel and steering column on the Terex RT230 30-ton crane. Scott Equipment timely filed its answer and generally denied the allegations and asked that the complaint be dismissed. It demanded a jury trial for any surviving issues of 3 material fact and affirmatively pled that any damages were solely and proximately caused by the negligence or fault of Mr. Jefferson or other parties. Moreover, it asked that the jury be allowed to consider the fault of Mr. Jefferson, Twin Rivers, and the nonparty manufacturer (Terex) in allocating fault. Scott Equipment pled several additional defenses that are not relevant to this appeal. On April 24, 2024, Scott Equipment filed a motion for summary judgment and an incorporated brief in support pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Scott Equipment explained that it had serviced the brakes on the Terex crane more than a week before the accident. However, it argued that there was a lack of evidence to sustain Jefferson’s negligence claim. In support, Scott Equipment argued that Jefferson’s disclosed independent expert, David R. Shewmaker, admitted in a deposition that Scott Equipment’s previous inspection and service of the crane and the brake system was proper. Scott Equipment further alleged that Mr. Shewmaker could only speculate as to the cause of the accident when one of many possible causes of potential brake failure occurred. In fact, Scott Equipment stated that Jefferson’s own expert witness, Mr. Shewmaker, could not identify or describe any act or omission that proximately caused the alleged brake failure. In summary, Scott Equipment argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because “the record in this case is completely devoid of any evidence that Scott Equipment Company failed to comply with the applicable standard of care for crane service operators; that Scott Equipment breached any such standard of care; or that any act or omission of Scott Equipment Company proximately caused the incident in which [Jefferson] claims he was injured.” 4 Jefferson took the deposition of his own expert witness, Mr. Shewmaker, on December 15, 2023. Scott Equipment attached Mr. Shewmaker’s deposition in support of its motion for summary judgment. In his deposition, Mr. Shewmaker admitted that he inspected the crane in September 2018—after Jefferson’s accident—and returned in October 2018 to replace parts to correct the problems with other unrelated maintenance issues. Mr. Shewmaker explained that after pushing the brake pedal down for more than thirty seconds, the brakes would “bleed off” and the wheels would roll. Mr. Shewmaker determined that the brake pads were still “good and thick” and that the brake fluid in the reservoir was not leaking. After further testing, Mr. Shewmaker ascertained that the brakes started holding and took longer to bleed off after he “took the airline going into the brake booster off and sprayed PB blaster in the booster to make the rubber swell to stop the air from bypassing it.” Therefore, Mr. Shewmaker diagnosed that the diaphragm inside the brake booster was leaking because of “[o]ld age” and recommended that both the brake booster and master cylinder be replaced. He denied that the brake booster would have been leaking air due to rust or other contaminates being in the brake line. He further denied that those parts should have been replaced before they started to fail. Mr. Shewmaker said the reason he replaced those parts was because he diagnosed that they were causing the “no-brake issue.” Mr. Shewmaker said that he never found any rust particles in any of the lines, master cylinder, or brake booster; however, he admitted that he was not sent to look for rust particles but to instead find and diagnose the problem. 5 When asked hypothetically whether rust particles found in the master cylinder would be an indication that the master cylinder needed to be replaced, Mr. Shewmaker replied no. He explained that there are multiple other reasons that could explain the reason for rust particles, including that the lines have deteriorated or that a seal could just be going out. Mr. Shewmaker also denied that the master cylinder would need to be replaced if rust particles were found in the brake fluid. He explained that he would flush the brake system and replace the brake lines as standard procedure under that scenario but would not replace the master cylinder. However, he admitted that rust particles would contaminate the master cylinder if left in it and that rust particles “could” affect the crane’s ability to stop. After Mr. Shewmaker replaced the brake booster and master cylinder and bled and flushed the brake system, there was no loss of air pressure when applying the brakes. Mr. Shewmaker subsequently returned in January 2019 to make additional repairs after another “crane certified” inspector inspected the crane. Mr. Shewmaker repaired or replaced the following parts in January 2019: the fire extinguisher, a missing crane manual, two lights, two turn signals, a main boom A to B switch, a front windshield washer pump, missing lower wear slide pads, and a nonworking low air pressure light and switch. He said that although the low air pressure light and switch was tied to the braking system, it did not have anything to do with whether the brakes would hold. The light would simply come on when the air pressure was low; however, Mr. Shewmaker admitted that the backup gauges would also indicate a problem. 6 Mr. Shewmaker was asked whether a person could look inside the brake booster to detect that the diaphragm was old or rotten. Mr. Shewmaker explained that was not possible because it was a sealed unit. He further explained that he “shot fluid” into the brake booster because he knew it would swell the rubber diaphragm so he could determine if that was the source of the leak. He stated that the test should not be done immediately to diagnose a problem with the brakes holding because the fluid would contaminate the brake booster requiring it to be replaced regardless of whether that was the source of the leak. Mr. Shewmaker reiterated that there was no timeline for replacing the brake booster or master cylinder. Cross-examination by Scott Equipment proved interesting. On cross-examination, Mr. Shewmaker admitted that he had not been aware that he was listed as Jefferson’s expert for trial. Q: . . . I’m looking at a document entitled Plaintiff’s Supplemental Expert Witness Disclosure. Are you aware that you had been listed by the plaintiff in this lawsuit Spencer Lee Jefferson as an expert witness . . . ? A: As an expert? No, I didn’t know that. I was just called to come here to give my point of what happened. . . . I didn’t know anything about it. Q: Okay. So it would be fair to say then you’ve probably never reviewed this expert disclosure where it lists all these various things that you were going to testify about? A: No. .... 7 Q: . . . And just so I’m clear, you don’t intend to offer any opinions at all about what Scott Equipment Company did or didn’t do with respect to any repairs on the mobile crane. Is that fair? A: That’s fair because I wasn’t there. Mr. Shewmaker also made the following admissions: (1) he “would not have replaced the booster and master cylinder until there was some evidence of a failure and it needed to be replaced”; (2) he did not “have any opinion that what Scott Equipment Company or its employees did to diagnose and/or make repairs to that Terex RT 230 mobile crane were deficient in any way”; (3) a crane operator should have inspected the crane before operating it; (4) a person is not supposed to jump out of a moving crane; (5) Jefferson could have easily discerned that the brake light was not operating properly had he performed an inspection; and (6) Jefferson should have verified that there was an operator’s manual in the crane with him before he used it. Jefferson filed his response to the motion for summary judgment and brief in support on June 21, 2024.4 He argued that the motion for summary judgment should be denied because there were “[g]enuine issues of material fact regarding Defendant’s negligence in maintaining the crane’s braking systems.” He alleged that Brian Baker, a mechanic employed 4 There were a series of motions and orders filed after Scott Equipment filed its motion for summary judgment. Jefferson filed a motion asking for an extension of time in order to retain another expert. The circuit court immediately filed an order granting the motion before any response was filed. Scott Equipment moved for reconsideration and asked for the extension order to be rescinded, which the circuit court granted. Eventually, a hearing was held on June 17, 2024, in which the circuit court ruled that Jefferson would be allowed to file a response to the motion for summary judgment by the close of business on June 21, 2024. A written order to that effect was filed on June 18, 2024. 8 by Scott Equipment, had inspected and made repairs to the crane’s brake system on August 2, 2018, before his accident. Jefferson argued that although Mr. Baker replaced the reservoir and flushed the brake system after finding that the reservoir contained rust, Mr. Baker should have checked inside the master cylinder for rust particles, sprayed PB blaster in the brake booster to determine if it needed to be replaced, taken a sample of the brake fluid to determine the cause of the rust, tested the brakes on an incline or decline after replacing the reservoir and flushing the brake fluid, tested the air pressure light and switch, and replaced the brake lines. Accordingly, Jefferson alleged that there remained questions of fact (1) “as to whether Baker’s inspection [was] inadequate when he was performing it during the days prior to [Jefferson’s] life changing injuries”; (2) with regard to whether Scott Equipment “properly trained and supervised Baker”; (3) as to “what would have been uncovered if” the pictures Mr. Baker took of the reservoir that were “destroyed . . . [had] been produced”; (4) as to “whether Baker properly serviced and maintained the parking brake system when he was doing that prior to [Jefferson’s] injury”; and (5) as to “whether Baker deviated from industry standard.” In addition to attaching a copy of the same deposition testimony from Mr. Shewmaker, Jefferson also attached copies of deposition testimony from Mr. Baker and himself. In his deposition, Mr. Baker testified that Twin Rivers had reported a braking problem with the Terex crane to Scott Equipment. Mr. Baker testified that he traveled to the paper mill to inspect and provide maintenance on the Terex crane on August 2, 2018. 9 After determining that the brakes worked “fairly well, but sometimes they didn’t hardly work at all,” Mr. Baker discovered that the brake fluid reservoir was filled with debris and rust. He noted that paper mills use a lot of chemicals that are notorious for causing rust. However, Mr. Baker could not say whether the environment caused the rust to build up over time. Nevertheless, Mr. Baker explained that he advised Twin Rivers that the reservoir and brake fluid needed to be replaced. He could not remember if he told Twin Rivers to stop using the crane at that point. He admitted that brake fluid with debris and rust could plug orifices, damage seals, or block pathways whenever it enters the master cylinder; however, he testified that those problems could be remedied by flushing the brake fluid to clean out the contamination. Mr. Baker ended up replacing the reservoir and flushed the brake fluid until he “got clean, clear, uncontaminated, new fluid throughout on all four calipers.” When asked whether he checked the brake lines for rust, Mr. Baker explained that one would not typically open a brake line unless there is a reason to do so. However, if one was to find rust inside the brake line, he “would probably replace it.” Mr. Baker did not believe there was an issue with the master cylinder because he had discovered that the fluid level was low, and he was able to intermittently get the brakes to work correctly, which indicated that the issue was not with the master cylinder. He also testified that he visually verified that there were no leaks and verified that the crane functioned properly by testing it after he finished making his repairs. He thought he took a picture of the inside of the reservoir, but he had not been able to locate any pictures. He did not “recall” investigating 10 or having any need to check the low air pressure alarm. Mr. Baker further admitted that he did not disassemble the brake booster; however, he explained that there was no reason to troubleshoot something that was working correctly. On cross-examination, Mr. Baker testified that there was not any reason for him to replace the master cylinder to resolve the customer’s problem and provided the following explanation: There was nothing to indicate further work was needed on the brake system. I was able to replicate the complaint. I found a probable cause and diagnosed it and replaced the part. And after I replaced the part, the brake issues that I was able replicate went away entirely. I was unable to get the brakes to malfunction after flushing the system and replacing the reservoir. Jefferson also attached his own deposition in support of his response for summary judgment. In Jefferson’s deposition, he admitted that he worked in maintenance but did not have a crane operator’s license. He explained that he was training to apply and take the crane operator’s test, but he thought he needed six months of “seat time” before he could do so. He estimated that he had been operating a crane about two times a week since he had started his training in May 2018. Jefferson admitted that he had never personally experienced any problems with the crane’s brakes until the date of the accident. He said that he had checked the brakes and fluid levels on the day of the accident, and he had no issues with operating the crane for approximately four hours. Jefferson claimed that when he traveled to a different site and was on a decline, the brakes went to the floor and the steering wheel locked. Because he thought the crane would “kill” him if he stayed in the cab, he took off his seatbelt and jumped off the crane. Jefferson claimed that because Scott 11 Equipment had previously worked on the brakes, and the brakes failed during his accident, Scott Equipment “had to be negligent.” On July 5, 2024, Scott Equipment filed its reply brief in support of the motion for summary judgment. It argued that Jefferson had failed to “meet proof with proof” because “there is no evidence of the applicable standard of care; of a breach of that standard by Scott Equipment Company; or that any such breach was the proximate cause of [Jefferson’s] alleged damages.” It explained that Jefferson’s only expert, Mr. Shewmaker, did not offer his opinion about the standard of care for the inspection and maintenance of a crane brake system, and he could not identify or describe any act or omission of Scott Equipment that was inconsistent with his own practices or that proximately caused the alleged brake failure. Scott Equipment argued that expert testimony was needed because the asserted negligence does not lie within the jury’s comprehension as a matter of common knowledge or requires technical or scientific proof. Scott Equipment additionally argued that because the complaint did not assert a claim for negligent training or supervision against Scott Equipment, any training arguments and allegations are immaterial and irrelevant. Scott Equipment noted that Jefferson failed to identify, join, and serve Mr. Baker as a defendant in this matter within the time permitted and that any direct claim against Mr. Baker had been barred by the statute of limitations. It argued that any claim against it based on vicarious liability must fail because the underlying liability of an employee or agent had been extinguished. Finally, Scott Equipment argued that Jefferson’s argument that he is entitled to an adverse inference because Mr. Baker destroyed pictures lacks merit. 12 On April 22, 2025, the circuit court filed a blanket written order that stated the following: From all things and matters presented to the Court, the Court FINDS and ORDERS as follows: The Court finds that no genuine issues of material fact exist; therefore, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. This matter is dismissed with prejudice. This appeal followed. II. Standard of Review Summary judgment may be granted only when there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Greenlee v. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs., Inc., 2009 Ark. 506, 342 S.W.3d 274. The burden of sustaining a motion for summary judgment is always the responsibility of the moving party. McGrew v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., 371 Ark. 567, 268 S.W.3d 890 (2007). Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Greenlee, supra. However, if a moving party fails to offer proof on a controverted issue, summary judgment is not appropriate regardless of whether the nonmoving party presents the court with any countervailing evidence. Moses v. Bridgeman, 355 Ark. 460, 139 S.W.3d 503 (2003). On appellate review, this court determines if summary judgment was appropriate by deciding whether the evidentiary items presented by the moving party in support of the 13 motion leave a material fact unanswered. Greenlee, supra. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was filed, resolving all doubts and inferences against the moving party. Id. Our review focuses not only on the pleadings but also on the affidavits and other documents filed by the parties. Id. However, when there is no material dispute as to the facts, we determine on review whether “reasonable minds” could draw “reasonable” inconsistent hypotheses to render summary judgment inappropriate. Town of Lead Hill v. Ozark Mountain Reg’l Pub. Water Auth., 2015 Ark. 360, at 3, 472 S.W.3d 118, 122. In other words, when the facts are not at issue but possible inferences therefrom are, the court will consider whether those inferences can be reasonably drawn from the undisputed facts and whether reasonable minds might differ on those hypotheses. Flentje v. First Nat’l Bank of Wynne, 340 Ark. 563, 11 S.W.3d 531 (2000); Mattox v. Main Entrance, Inc., 2021 Ark. App. 382. To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must show that damages were sustained, that the defendant breached the standard of care, and that the defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of the damages. Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Sharp, 330 Ark. 174, 952 S.W.2d 658 (1997). Proximate causation is an essential element for a cause of action in negligence. Clark v. Ridgeway, 323 Ark. 378, 914 S.W.2d 745 (1996). “Proximate cause” is defined, for negligence purposes, as that which, in a natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. Barnett v. Cleghorn, 2017 Ark. App. 641, 536 S.W.3d 147. Proximate causation is usually an issue for the jury to decide, and when there is evidence to 14 establish a causal connection between the negligence of the defendant and the damage, it is proper for the case to go to the jury. Id. When a party cannot present proof on an essential element of his claim, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Gonzales v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 2022 Ark. App. 501, 659 S.W.3d 277. III. Failure to Challenge All Independent Grounds Although his appellate brief is repetitive, Jefferson generally argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment because there were “countless issues of genuine fact for the jury to determine.” He maintains that Scott Equipment’s employee, Mr. Baker, failed to properly inspect and maintain the braking system. He argues that Mr. Baker’s and Mr. Shewmaker’s deposition testimony identified multiple breaches of Scott Equipment’s duty of care, including failing to inspect the master cylinder; failing to test the brakes on an incline or decline; failing to detect that the low air pressure light was not working; failing to take a sample of the brake fluid; failing to replace the brake lines, master cylinder, and brake booster; failing to spray PB blaster in the brake booster; and failing to test, check, or inspect the low air pressure light and switch. In his brief, Jefferson additionally argues that the following questions of fact still exist: (1) whether Mr. Baker’s inspection was inadequate; (2) whether Scott Equipment properly trained and supervised Mr. Baker; (3) because Mr. Baker destroyed the pictures of the reservoir that he replaced, “what would have been uncovered” if the pictures had been produced; (4) whether Mr. Baker properly serviced and maintained the parking brake system; and (5) whether Mr. Baker deviated from industry standard. 15 Notably, Jefferson’s brief does not specifically address all the arguments advanced in Scott Equipment’s motion for summary judgment and reply. Scott Equipment argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because “the record in this case is completely devoid of any evidence that Scott Equipment Company failed to comply with the applicable standard of care for crane service operators; that Scott Equipment breached any such standard of care; or that any act or omission of Scott Equipment Company proximately caused the incident in which [Jefferson] claims he was injured.” However, Jefferson’s arguments on appeal do not specifically address Scott Equipment’s argument that there was no evidence of proximate cause. In fact, the phrase “proximate cause” is never used. Additionally, Jefferson does not address Scott Equipment’s argument in its reply that any claim against it based on vicarious liability must fail where the underlying liability of an employee or agent—Mr. Baker—is extinguished. Here, the circuit court issued a blanket ruling granting the motion for summary judgment and dismissing Jefferson’s complaint without making any specific findings on the issues and arguments advanced by the parties. The supreme court has previously recognized that when a circuit court denies a summary-judgment motion without expressly stating the basis for its ruling, that ruling encompasses the issues presented to the circuit court by the briefs and arguments of the parties. Quarles v. Courtyard Gardens Health & Rehab., LLC, 2016 Ark. 112, at 8–9, 488 S.W.3d 513, 520. That rule also applies when a circuit court grants a motion for summary judgment. Id. In other words, with this blanket ruling, the circuit court is deemed to have accepted all the arguments advanced by appellee. Moreover, our appellate 16 courts have held that when the circuit court bases its decision on two independent grounds and an appellant challenges only one ground on appeal, this court will affirm without addressing the merits of either argument. Id.; Fennell v. City of Pine Bluff, 2016 Ark. App. 275, at 11, 492 S.W.3d 887, 893. Therefore, the circuit court’s blanket ruling in this case encompassed Scott Equipment’s arguments that there was no evidence of proximate cause and that any claim against it based on vicarious liability must fail because the underlying liability of an employee or agent—Mr. Baker—is extinguished as independent grounds for its decision. Accordingly, because Jefferson failed to challenge every independent ground on which the circuit court based its decision, we must summarily affirm without addressing the merits of Jefferson’s other arguments raised on appeal. Affirmed. TUCKER and WOOD, JJ., agree. Christy & Ferguson, by: James R. Ferguson; and Pratt & Tobin, P.C., by: Benjamin P. Tobin, for appellant. Barber Munson, by: J. Carter Fairley and Lauren A. Spencer, for appellee Scott Equipment Company, LLC. 17