Part Of Ark. Tort Reform Ruled Unconstitutional

In that same vein, the justice wrote that rules governing evidence should be handled by the Supreme Court, not legislators. The 2003 state law limited what kind of evidence can be heard.

"The provision clearly limits the evidence that may be introduced relating to the value of medical expenses," Danielson wrote.

Holmes posed the questions to the Supreme Court as he hears a case involving Darrell Johnson, a Batesville man injured while on the job at an Eastman Chemical Co. plant. In his federal lawsuit, Johnson claimed a "starter bucket" built by Rockwell Automation Inc. powered on when it shouldn't have, despite having a safety switch.

When Johnson tried to pull fuses from the device, electricity arced and caused an explosion, leaving his right hand burned and injuring his nervous system, his lawsuit claims. The suit sought monetary damages for both his medical bills and "pain and suffering past and future."

James McMath, a Little Rock lawyer representing Johnson, said the ruling meant that Rockwell wouldn't be able to try and bring another party into the suit who might be immune. Under that scenario, McMath said, a company could shift the judgment onto an immune party and limit what they'd have to pay.