Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 160 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-24-717
WESTSIDE LOFT APARTMENTS Opinion Delivered March 4, 2026
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH V. DIVISION [NO. 60CV-22-2582] TINA FOWLER HONORABLE LATONYA APPELLEE HONORABLE, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
MIKE MURPHY, Judge
Appellant Westside Loft Apartments appeals from a judgment entered against it and
in favor of appellee Tina Fowler. Westside makes three arguments on appeal: (1) the court
erred in denying its motion to dismiss for failure to include a necessary party and motion to
add a necessary party; (2) the court erred in striking Westside’s answer as a discovery sanction;
and (3) the awarded damages were inappropriate and not supported by evidence. We affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
On February 9, 2022, Fowler was attacked outside her apartment by her neighbor’s
dog. The neighbor’s pit bull slipped out of its collar and lunged at Fowler and her two dogs.1
1 Fowler had two Maltese dogs about ten pounds each and had provided Westside all the necessary information that qualified her dogs as “emotional support animals” in accordance with its pet agreement. Fowler said she was knocked down and was bitten on her right hand, left arm, and neck.
Fowler was able to protect one of her dogs, but the other one required three surgeries. Fowler
sought medical treatment and received an antibiotic shot for her injuries. Fowler notified
management about the incident and inquired whether the pit bull was up to date on its
rabies vaccine, but she could never get a definitive answer from management or the pet’s
owner. Accordingly, Fowler underwent a series of rabies shots.
Following the attack, Fowler submitted complaints to Westside and expressed
ongoing concern about the presence of multiple pit bull dogs on the property because she
had become aware that there was also a female pit bull living in the apartment that had eight
puppies. On February 22, Fowler received an eviction notice citing aggressive behavior
toward management in a meeting about the dog attack. Fowler refused to move, and on
April 21, 2022, Westside filed an unlawful-detainer complaint for breach of the lease
agreement. In response, Fowler filed an answer and counterclaim for negligence, outrage,
unlawful detainer, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Westside filed an answer
and a motion to dismiss its own complaint against Fowler, which was granted on July 21,
2022.
On October 25, Fowler moved to compel discovery, and an order compelling
discovery by November 15 was entered.2 On November 21, Westside answered the discovery
2 The first set of written discovery was submitted on June 21, 2022; counsel sent Westside a reminder via letter dated September 13.
2 in part, but most of the answers were incomplete, so on November 22, Fowler moved to
strike Westside’s answer, contending that Westside was seven days late in violation of the
order compelling discovery.
On May 12, 2023, Westside moved to join an indispensable party—the actual owners
of the dog involved in the attack. On May 25, the court granted Fowler’s motion to strike
Westside’s answer to her counterclaim under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 37(2)(c) and
declared that damages would be the only issue at trial. On September 15, Westside moved
to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party. The court denied Westside’s motion,
explaining that it had no basis to grant it because the court had previously set aside the
answer in which that defense might have been preserved.
A jury trial was held on June 18, 2024. Fowler testified that before this attack, she
had two other run-ins with her neighbor’s pit bull. She alleged that she reported the second
incident to the property manager but that her complaints were dismissed. Fowler also said
that she reached out to Westside inquiring about the pit bull’s service-animal status because
Westside’s pet agreement prohibited certain breeds, including pit bulls, but never received
an answer.
Fowler testified to the medical and veterinary expenses she incurred from the
February attack. She also said that she eventually chose to move out of the apartment and
rent a house in a nearby neighborhood. She presented the costs associated with her move to
the jury. Specifically, Fowler testified to medical expenses totaling $10,951.68; vet bills
totaling $982.00; $601.23 to a moving company to leave the apartment; and an additional
3 $400.00 for a new residential deposit. In addition to these expenses, she testified to the pain
she experienced from the side effects of the four rabies shots she received and the anxiety
and fear that stemmed from the attack.
The jury returned a verdict in Fowler’s favor awarding her $30,000 in compensatory
damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. The jury’s decision was reduced to a $40,000
written judgment entered on July 1, 2024. Westside filed a motion for new trial on July 15.
It filed a notice of appeal on July 30 and amended notice of appeal on August 15 to include
the deemed denial of its post-trial motion.
II. Necessary Party
Westside contends that the circuit court erred in denying its motions to add a
necessary party and to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party under Arkansas Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(7). It argues that the dog’s owners were indispensable parties because
Fowler’s injuries would not have occurred without their actions and because the jury could
have apportioned fault to them.
Westside first moved to add the dog’s owners under Rule 19 on May 12, 2023—nearly
a year after Fowler filed her counterclaim—and later moved to dismiss on September 15,
2023. A motion to dismiss is warranted for failure to join a party under Rule 19 of the
Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Ark. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(7) (2021). Rule 19 requires joinder
of parties necessary for a “just adjudication,” ensuring that all persons materially affected by
the outcome are included. See Smith v. Moore, 49 Ark. 100, 103, 4 S.W. 282, 283 (1887)
(interpreting a predecessor of Rules 19 and 24).
4 However, both motions were ruled on after the court had struck Westside’s answer
as a discovery sanction. Under Arkansas law, Rule 12(b) defenses must be pleaded in an
answer or original responsive pleading, and the defense of indispensable parties may be
waived. See Dobbs v. Discover Bank, 2012 Ark. App. 678, at 11, 425 S.W.3d 50, 57; see also
Vibo Corp. v. State ex rel. McDaniel, 2011 Ark. 124, at 10, 380 S.W.3d 411, 420. Because
judgment on liability had been entered, Westside no longer had an operative pleading and
therefore lacked standing to seek affirmative relief. Moreover, Fowler’s claims against
Westside included its duty to maintain a safe premises and to enforce its own policies, which
did not directly concern the owners of the dog. The court did not err in denying Westside’s
motions.
III. Discovery Sanction
Westside next argues that the circuit court erred in striking its answer as a discovery
sanction. Westside makes this argument too late since it cannot challenge this type of
intermediate order after entry of final judgment.
Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 2(a)(4) provides that an appeal may be
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 160 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-24-717
WESTSIDE LOFT APARTMENTS Opinion Delivered March 4, 2026
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH V. DIVISION [NO. 60CV-22-2582] TINA FOWLER HONORABLE LATONYA APPELLEE HONORABLE, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
MIKE MURPHY, Judge
Appellant Westside Loft Apartments appeals from a judgment entered against it and
in favor of appellee Tina Fowler. Westside makes three arguments on appeal: (1) the court
erred in denying its motion to dismiss for failure to include a necessary party and motion to
add a necessary party; (2) the court erred in striking Westside’s answer as a discovery sanction;
and (3) the awarded damages were inappropriate and not supported by evidence. We affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
On February 9, 2022, Fowler was attacked outside her apartment by her neighbor’s
dog. The neighbor’s pit bull slipped out of its collar and lunged at Fowler and her two dogs.1
1 Fowler had two Maltese dogs about ten pounds each and had provided Westside all the necessary information that qualified her dogs as “emotional support animals” in accordance with its pet agreement. Fowler said she was knocked down and was bitten on her right hand, left arm, and neck.
Fowler was able to protect one of her dogs, but the other one required three surgeries. Fowler
sought medical treatment and received an antibiotic shot for her injuries. Fowler notified
management about the incident and inquired whether the pit bull was up to date on its
rabies vaccine, but she could never get a definitive answer from management or the pet’s
owner. Accordingly, Fowler underwent a series of rabies shots.
Following the attack, Fowler submitted complaints to Westside and expressed
ongoing concern about the presence of multiple pit bull dogs on the property because she
had become aware that there was also a female pit bull living in the apartment that had eight
puppies. On February 22, Fowler received an eviction notice citing aggressive behavior
toward management in a meeting about the dog attack. Fowler refused to move, and on
April 21, 2022, Westside filed an unlawful-detainer complaint for breach of the lease
agreement. In response, Fowler filed an answer and counterclaim for negligence, outrage,
unlawful detainer, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Westside filed an answer
and a motion to dismiss its own complaint against Fowler, which was granted on July 21,
2022.
On October 25, Fowler moved to compel discovery, and an order compelling
discovery by November 15 was entered.2 On November 21, Westside answered the discovery
2 The first set of written discovery was submitted on June 21, 2022; counsel sent Westside a reminder via letter dated September 13.
2 in part, but most of the answers were incomplete, so on November 22, Fowler moved to
strike Westside’s answer, contending that Westside was seven days late in violation of the
order compelling discovery.
On May 12, 2023, Westside moved to join an indispensable party—the actual owners
of the dog involved in the attack. On May 25, the court granted Fowler’s motion to strike
Westside’s answer to her counterclaim under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 37(2)(c) and
declared that damages would be the only issue at trial. On September 15, Westside moved
to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party. The court denied Westside’s motion,
explaining that it had no basis to grant it because the court had previously set aside the
answer in which that defense might have been preserved.
A jury trial was held on June 18, 2024. Fowler testified that before this attack, she
had two other run-ins with her neighbor’s pit bull. She alleged that she reported the second
incident to the property manager but that her complaints were dismissed. Fowler also said
that she reached out to Westside inquiring about the pit bull’s service-animal status because
Westside’s pet agreement prohibited certain breeds, including pit bulls, but never received
an answer.
Fowler testified to the medical and veterinary expenses she incurred from the
February attack. She also said that she eventually chose to move out of the apartment and
rent a house in a nearby neighborhood. She presented the costs associated with her move to
the jury. Specifically, Fowler testified to medical expenses totaling $10,951.68; vet bills
totaling $982.00; $601.23 to a moving company to leave the apartment; and an additional
3 $400.00 for a new residential deposit. In addition to these expenses, she testified to the pain
she experienced from the side effects of the four rabies shots she received and the anxiety
and fear that stemmed from the attack.
The jury returned a verdict in Fowler’s favor awarding her $30,000 in compensatory
damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. The jury’s decision was reduced to a $40,000
written judgment entered on July 1, 2024. Westside filed a motion for new trial on July 15.
It filed a notice of appeal on July 30 and amended notice of appeal on August 15 to include
the deemed denial of its post-trial motion.
II. Necessary Party
Westside contends that the circuit court erred in denying its motions to add a
necessary party and to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party under Arkansas Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(7). It argues that the dog’s owners were indispensable parties because
Fowler’s injuries would not have occurred without their actions and because the jury could
have apportioned fault to them.
Westside first moved to add the dog’s owners under Rule 19 on May 12, 2023—nearly
a year after Fowler filed her counterclaim—and later moved to dismiss on September 15,
2023. A motion to dismiss is warranted for failure to join a party under Rule 19 of the
Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Ark. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(7) (2021). Rule 19 requires joinder
of parties necessary for a “just adjudication,” ensuring that all persons materially affected by
the outcome are included. See Smith v. Moore, 49 Ark. 100, 103, 4 S.W. 282, 283 (1887)
(interpreting a predecessor of Rules 19 and 24).
4 However, both motions were ruled on after the court had struck Westside’s answer
as a discovery sanction. Under Arkansas law, Rule 12(b) defenses must be pleaded in an
answer or original responsive pleading, and the defense of indispensable parties may be
waived. See Dobbs v. Discover Bank, 2012 Ark. App. 678, at 11, 425 S.W.3d 50, 57; see also
Vibo Corp. v. State ex rel. McDaniel, 2011 Ark. 124, at 10, 380 S.W.3d 411, 420. Because
judgment on liability had been entered, Westside no longer had an operative pleading and
therefore lacked standing to seek affirmative relief. Moreover, Fowler’s claims against
Westside included its duty to maintain a safe premises and to enforce its own policies, which
did not directly concern the owners of the dog. The court did not err in denying Westside’s
motions.
III. Discovery Sanction
Westside next argues that the circuit court erred in striking its answer as a discovery
sanction. Westside makes this argument too late since it cannot challenge this type of
intermediate order after entry of final judgment.
Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 2(a)(4) provides that an appeal may be
taken from “[a]n order which strikes out an answer, or any part of an answer, or any pleading
in an action.” An order striking a pleading that may be appealed pursuant to Rule 2(a)(4)
must be appealed within thirty days from its entry. In re Est. of Stinnett, 2011 Ark. 278, at 8,
383 S.W.3d 357, 361–62. Here, the order striking the answer was entered on May 25, 2023.
Westside’s notice of appeal was not filed until July 30, 2024—well beyond the thirty-day
5 deadline. Accordingly, the notice of appeal was untimely as to that order, and this court lacks
jurisdiction to review any portion of the appeal challenging the discovery sanction.
IV. Damages
As its last point, Westside argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the
jury’s award of damages. It asserts that the verdict was excessive, speculative, and
unsupported by medical evidence, particularly focusing on the costs of the rabies shots and
other treatments that were not contemporaneous with the dog bite. It also argues that the
award appears to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice due to Fowler’s
testimony regarding the dangerousness of the pit bull breed.
The record shows that Westside moved for a directed verdict at trial, contending that
Fowler failed to prove the reasonableness and necessity of her medical expenses for the rabies
shots and x-ray. Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) requires that a directed-verdict
motion “state the specific grounds therefor.” To the extent Westside brings up any other
arguments challenging sufficiency not related to the rabies shots or x-ray, they are not
preserved for our review.
A directed-verdict motion is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and when
reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, this court determines whether the
jury’s verdict is supported by substantial evidence. Ken’s Discount Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Meeks,
95 Ark. App. 37, 233 S.W.3d 176 (2006). Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force
and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the
other without having to resort to speculation or conjecture. Id. When determining the
6 sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence and all reasonable inferences
arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the party on whose behalf judgment was
entered. Id.
A party seeking to recover medical expenses in a personal-injury case has the burden
of proving both the reasonableness and necessity of those expenses. Bell v. Stafford, 284 Ark.
196, 199, 680 S.W.2d 700, 702 (1984). However, expert medical testimony is not essential
in every case to prove the reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses. Id. The circuit
court has some discretion in deciding whether a non-expert witness, usually the injured party,
has laid a sufficient foundation to testify about reasonableness and a causal relationship. Id.
The testimony of the injured party alone, in some cases, can provide a sufficient foundation
for the introduction of medical expenses incurred. Id.
Here, Fowler testified in detail about the dog attack, her injuries, and her fear of
contracting rabies, which prompted the series of shots. The shots were clearly related to the
dog bite; thus, this did not require expert testimony. The jury was entitled to weigh Fowler’s
credibility and determine whether the expense was necessary and reasonable. Given these
circumstances, the jury justifiably determined that it was not unreasonable for Fowler to seek
rabies treatment when the dog’s vaccination status was unclear.
Further, Fowler testified about how painful the shots were and lingering symptoms
of nausea, soreness, joint pain, and emotional distress. Notably, Fowler sought $100,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages, and the jury awarded $30,000 compensatory and
$10,000 punitive damages. Her unrefuted testimony was for $10,951.68 in medical expenses.
7 While those medical expenses are the only damages that Westside challenged in its directed-
verdict motion, Fowler also testified about her pain and suffering from the incident;
veterinary expenses; moving expenses; and a new residence deposit. We hold that the jury’s
award was supported by substantial evidence.
Further, when an award of damages is alleged on appeal to be excessive, we review the
proof and all reasonable inferences most favorably to the appellee and determine whether
the verdict is so great as to shock the conscience or demonstrate passion or prejudice on the
part of the jury. Advocat, Inc. v. Sauer, 353 Ark. 29, 44–45, 111 S.W.3d 346, 354 (2003). Our
supreme court has held that there is no definite and satisfactory rule to measure
compensation for pain and suffering; the amount of damages must depend on the
circumstances of each particular case. Id. Additionally, we have held that compensation for
pain and suffering must be left to the sound discretion of the jury, and the conclusion
reached by it should not be disturbed unless the award is clearly excessive. Id.
Westside argues that the damages award clearly reflects that the jury’s passions were
inflamed by the negative perception of pit bulls and its beliefs that they are dangerous.
However, this is a conclusory assertion because Westside fails to point to any specific
testimony that would have inflamed the jury regarding pit bulls. Construing all reasonable
inferences in Fowler’s favor, we do not find the amount of the verdict so great as to shock
the conscience. Nor does the verdict demonstrate passion or prejudice on the part of the
jury.
8 Finally, Westside challenges the punitive-damages awarded. However, it made no
directed-verdict motion to dismiss Fowler’s claim for punitive damages, nor did it object to
the jury being instructed on punitive damages. Thus, we are precluded from addressing the
issue now. See Prendergast v. Craft, 102 Ark. App. 237, 245, 284 S.W.3d 104, 110 (2008).
However, the same does not hold true for Westside’s argument that the punitive-
damages award was excessive, even though that argument was also made for the first time in
the posttrial motion. Obviously, a party is unaware of the excessive nature of a verdict until
that verdict is rendered. See Id. We therefore consider the merits of this argument.
As touched on above, when the argument on appeal is that the damages are excessive
as a matter of state law, we review the proof and all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the appellees, and we determine whether the verdict is so great as to shock the
conscience of this court or to demonstrate passion or prejudice on the part of the trier of
fact. Calvary Christian Sch., Inc. v. Huffstuttler, 367 Ark. 117, 238 S.W.3d 58 (2006). When
reviewing an award of punitive damages, we consider the extent and enormity of the wrong,
the intent of the party committing the wrong, all the circumstances, and the financial and
social condition and standing of the erring party. Id.
Here, the punitive-damages award does not shock the conscience of the court. The
jury heard Fowler’s testimony that Westside ignored her warnings about the pit bull; failed
to follow up with her after the attack; refused to collect or provide proof of vaccination for
the dog; served Fowler an eviction notice shortly after the complaints that stemmed from the
attack; and failed to secure supporting documentation from the dog’s owners regarding
9 service-animal status despite Westside’s policy requiring these records. It was for the jury to
determine what testimony it deemed credible and how much weight it accorded the
evidence. This court may not substitute its judgment for the jury’s when there is a basis in
the evidence for the award and when there is no evidence, appropriately objected to, that
tends to create passion or prejudice. Prendergast, 102 Ark. App. at 246, 284 S.W.3d at 111.
Accordingly, we affirm the damages award.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN and WOOD, JJ., agree.
The Firm, PLLC, by: S.L. Smith, for appellant.
Ogles Law Firm, by: John Ogles, for appellee.