Dogpatch

A bunch dilapidated buildings at the former Dogpatch, USA, are still familiar along Highway 7 South, but the property has been sold to Great American Spillproof Products Inc.

JASPER — Newton County Circuit Judge Shawn Womack on Tuesday put an end to the fate of the property once known as Dogpatch, USA, naming new owners.

On order signed by Womack named Stewart and Pruett Nance, and Brent Baber, effectively ending the case that began almost six years ago.

The case involved an ATV accident Sept. 9, 2005, at the former theme park which was owned by Westek Corporation Inc. The accident occurred when Pruett Nance was driving an ATV down a defined road in the park and drove into a steel cable strung between two trees, striking him in the throat.

The Nances filed suit Nov. 2, 2005, against the owners, naming Mike E. Carr, Michael L. Carr, C.L. Carr, C.L. Carr Jr. and Tahoe Gaming LLC., as well as Lynn Larson, Westek Corp., Leisuretek LTD, Ford Carr and Alberta Carr as defendants, although the latter defendants were later dismissed from the suit.

The case was then argued in Newton County Circuit Court before a jury Sept. 16 - 17, 2008.

During the trial, one of Pruett Nance’s cousins testified he was riding four-wheelers on the Dogpatch property with other family members when they were stopped by a man and a younger-looking kid, who was pointing a shotgun at them. He said they were held about two hours, until the police showed up. He said the men said they had problems with trespassers and vandals.

The defendants had argued that the cable used to limit access to the park was not an ultra-hazardous condition or activity. Michael Carr said he was going to get tape when the accident occurred.

The jury awarded $400,000 for compensatory damages to Stewart Nance, as well as $100,000 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages to Pruett Nance, Stewart Nance’s son.

But the court reduced compensatory damages to Stewart Nance to $233,707.42.

The defendants appealed the decision and the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the lower courts decision, although it did reinstate Stewart Nance’s compensatory damages to $400,000.

The defendant’s in the original suit were ordered to tender a warranty deed for the property in case the judgment wasn’t paid. Womack’s order on Tuesday ended the case and gave the land to the Nances and Baber, their attorney.

“The transfer of these lands is taken in full satisfaction of plaintiffs’ judgment against all defendants,” a handwritten entry on the court order reads.

(95) comments

StUNNd

Every single summer of my childhood included a visit to this most awesome amusement park. And I had even heard that it was going to open back up (i'm still waiting for that), seriously! Please?!?! I had absolutely no idea whatsoever to the reason it had closed in the 1st place, until now! I'm in total shock! And confused. So, who owns it today? And is it really for sale? And how much? It was so much fun, even way back then, when old stuff wasn't cool, just imagine how much fun one could have, now that everything antique and "old" are cool!

Bobsockets

Ok correct me if I am wrong here but as long as I have lived in AR, about 13 years Dog Patch property had up NO TRESPASSING signs! NO Trespassing, which means you stay off the property for whatever reason. It would seem Mr Nance trespassed got hurt because of his trespassing and others had to pay for it! Well Nance family the same might happen to you and there might be NEW owners of Dog patch once again, KARMA!
The lesson here kids...DONT TRESPASS! DUH!

splashy

@Rob

I know people in several countries with universal health care - Canada, U.K., Australia, France, and some others.

Their outcomes are better than ours, and most of them think we are insane with how we let so many go without ANY health care at all. They just don't think about it, they just go to the doctor.

It's a culture shock when they come here and find out how much we have to go through to get basic care, much less advanced care. All the paperwork, all the arguing with insurance companies, all the deductibles, all the pharmaceutical costs - to them it's a nightmare, and they wonder why we put up with it.

Most people breathe a sigh of relief when they finally get on Medicare. It's so much easier and more reliable.

personwhocares

I agree with you JetSet97. I have always believe the saying... You will reap what you sow...I hope the new owners are PREPARED for this. Also I think that they are going to find out that Dogpatch will be their worst nightmare. The Indian curse is now theirs!!![beam]

JetSet97

I have always believed the saying...You will reap what you sow... I hope the new owners are prepared for this.[wink]

Rob

@ Mr. Kristopeit,
(My apologies for having misspelled your name earlier.)
And, as always, the bottom line is; 'darned if you do, and darned if you don't'.

Michael Kristopeit

@Rob
In my experience, insurance companies look for every little thing to wiggle out of paying. To slightly borrow your example: If a person were injured on your property as a result of a bona fide accident, I could see them paying (and you by means of a insurance increase). I bet that in the Dogpatch case, the insurance company would have wiggled out of paying though (which may have been the case, I am not sure). I have a business insurance policy, it is about 400 pages. I guarantee most of that isn't filled with benefits. I'm sure I'm throwing money in a hole, but all I can do is try to be safe by having rails in some areas and other safety precautions, and this insurance policy.

Rob

@ Splashy,
I have relatives who live in Canada, and know a few who live in England. Where do they go for medical care beyond a few stitches? The U.S. Why? Because they can GET IT. Do you have any idea how long people in either country have to wait for an MRI? MONTHS! Do you know that in England the ER's were getting so backed up that they made a new 'law' stating that it's illegal for any hospital to keep a patient waiting for over 6 hours? So, to compensate for that law, guess what the hospitals do. They leave the patients in the ambulance. No, I am not kidding. I know that for a fact. I could go on and on with facts that prove what a disaster 'universal health care' is, but the bottom line is that you are not responsible for my health, nor do I want you to be. Why? Because as soon as you are responsible for my health, you can start making my personal choices for me. No, thank you!
If I want to smoke, I'll smoke. If I want to live off a main diet of Cheetos, I'll eat Cheetos, and you have NO RIGHT to tell me that I can't.
Thank you very much.

Rob

@ Phil Graydon,
FWIW, I happen to agree with you 100%. What's so tragic is that so few value property ownership - the very foundation on which this country was built. [The evidence is quite clear. Just look at the number of people who think, (I mean, FEEL), that private businesses are public property.] What you worked your tail end off for your entire life can be snapped right out from underneath you - all because of greedy, snarky legal eagles who found a way to maneuvre a completely immoral law that somehow makes you legally - not morally - responsible for everybody else's personal choices.
Sometimes ya gotta wonder - what came first, the attorneys or the insurance companies? Doesn't matter, really, because until people start basing their decisions on thinking rather than feelings, it's a lost cause.

Rob

Mr. Kristopeil,
Please don't think that I don't believe you; I do. But there is something that I don't understand. If a homeowner is not obligated to keep his property safe for recreational purposes, then why would insurance companies bother with policies that cover a 'guest' who is injured on your property - recreational, or not?
[Just to (hopefully) clarify my question - We had a friend who was injured on our property. Not horribly, but enough to try to persuade him to seek medical attention. He refused. Just to be sure, I later double-checked w/my ins. agent who assured me that yes, indeed, he/we would be covered. Not that I wouldn't have paid for a dr. visit, anyway - I just wanted to know where I stood, insurance-wise. Further asked my agent, "What if I didn't offer, and he sued? Would that be covered?" Again, yes - up to and including $X amount. I guess what it all boils down to is I don't HAVE to, but I MAY? Still, the very reason we have that insurance policy is so that what happened to the Dogpatch owners doesn't happen to us. I'm beginning to think that I'm throwing money down a hole. Yes? No?)

Michael Kristopeit

I think it's pretty obvious that Phil is a troll. I've never met anybody actually that stupid in the face of facts.

For anybody else that shows up and reads these comments, ignore Phil.

@splashy I don't think that you'd be liable if you invited people to a party at your house and somebody tripped on a molehill. If they stumbled into Phil's torture dungeon and got hurt, that would be a different story. Arkansas 18-11-304 says "an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe ... for recreational purposes". There is of course an exclusion for "failure to guard or warn against an ultra-hazardous condition".

Phil Graydon

More food for thought.

The following link is from a news article based out of Fayetteville. It has a trespassers dying, he was homeless... it seems as though it was lifted from the pages of this very newspaper.

My question; who do you feel is at fault?

http://www.4029tv.com/r/27825667/detail.html#ixzz1Lyfcskqs

Phil Graydon

arkintosh and Frankie,

Listen... I'm not trying to berate or insult anyone. I disagree with the verdict. I'm quite stable mentally and I'm no more or less credible than either of you or anyone else for that matter. Perhaps a bit more than people who hide behind a screen name, but even that is debatable.

I have consistently stated that I don't know either party. Whether they had permission or didn't isn't at the heart of the issue to me. To me, it comes down to personal responsibility. I happen to believe that as a society in general we (collectively) have ceded more and more personal responsibility and some would have us give it up totally. I've actually witnessed conversations where people compete to be victims. The proverbial, "Oh you think you had it bad, well one time I was..."

My point, and the only point I'm trying to make, strictly based on the summation of the case (as a link posted by hsncitizen) is simply this; When you look at the behavior of both sides and cast blame, some (not all) could conclude both parties are at minimum 50% responsible. I would cast more on the rider of the ATV who admitted to being outside the manufacturers recommendations and was supposed to be in control. He was the one moving, not the cable. He was the one traveling fast enough to cause major damage to his body. He was the one not wearing protection. You can/may disagree. It's my opinion. Period.

Will you at least admit this all could have been avoided? Would it have happened had there been no cable? Probably not. Would have happened had the ATV operator been driving himself and a passenger slower? Probably not. Would it have happened had the rider been wearing recommended PERSONAL protection? Again, probably not.

Who's to blame? Well the court system says the land owner. I disagree. That shouldn't be insulting to you or anyone else. It's merely an opinion. My opinion. And it's no more or less credible than yours.

splashy

@Rob
So, you don't know what universal health care is from your comment. It's not government run, it's that EVERYONE gets basic health care. Try talking to the people who have it sometime.

If the Nances knew he would get health care in the future, and wouldn't be bankrupted from it (which does NOT happen in other countries with universal health care) they may not have felt the need to sue for the money to cover the health care. Suites for health care costs just don't happen in other countries that have universal health care, and people DO get treated. Look at Stephen Hawking, who hav been taken care of for decades now in the UK.

I'm still thinking about the idea that if you give permission to be on your land you are liable for any injuries. I thought that was only when you had a business of some kind. Private land where you don't sell anything is not that way, is it?

Going to go try to find out.

frankieGwizz

the carrs are so credible. you're right phil. that's why they "lost" the cable and covered the road in dirt within 24hours of the accident. the pictures were submitted as evidence in the case. that's real honest. and real credible.

arkintosh42

I feel sorry for you Phil. I've read through your posts, and there isn't one where you don't take an opportunity to try and degrade someone. As far as credibility, you have none. A credible person can rebut another persons opinion without taking cheap shots at them.

Part of me thinks you are just trolling to get a response. If you are serious though, you need to get some mental help as you have some serious issues....

Phil Graydon

Sane One,

You can attack my credibility, but at least do so from an educated position. I didn't compare them, I used several examples that I thought most people would recognize. And your assertion that the Nance's had permission (put it in CAPS all you like) was refuted by direct testimony from the Carrs.

The point is, you have chosen to believe the Nance Family and have adopted a theory that the ATV operator has no responsibility to take care of himself. Further, it is your assertion that a 16 year old boy was wilfully and purposely trying to harm/kill someone. I disagree. I'm sorry if that hurts your sensibilities, but I think this verdict is a crock. That's my opinion. Insulting me won't change it, and you're certainly not able to debate me on the merits.

What we have is a difference of opinion. That's OK. I don't hold you responsible for sitting in the cheering section while our rights as Americans erode. You're just a product of your education and upbringing. I pity you. Furthermore, you're so ashamed of your opinion, you can't even post your name to your words. I can and I have. Does that mean I'm smarter? No. But it does mean I have the testicular fortitude to stand up and speak. That goes out to you too arkie1.

Rob

When you 'grant permission' for someone to be on your property, you accept the responsibility for what happens to them while there. That includes written oral invitations, or simply opening your door - to friends or strangers. If you don't tell someone you don't want on your property to leave immediately, you've accepted liability.
That you don't know that you're liable, doesn't excuse you from being liable.

@ Splashy - If we had that far inferior 'universal health care', the young man would probably still be WAITING for medical attention.

@ Truther. There already was a survey. The county voted 'no'.

Truther

Will the HDT please post a survey asking the folks of Boone County if they would support a Casino in the county?

splashy

Question: would the Nances have sued if the US had a better health care system that was universal that everyone could have for life, as it is in many other developed countries? How much of this suit was based on past and possible future medical bills?

If it was mostly about the medical bills, then this suit was at least partly caused by our for-profit medical system, as are many suits here in the US. Think of how less often people would sue if they knew they would be taken care of, and how many fewer bad relations there would be in incidents like this. If nothing else, they wouldn't ask for as much, leading to things like this.

Of course, some of the lawyers might not like that, because they make money from people suing each other for medical bills.

lagr08

Even WITH permission one shouldn't be allowed to sue over an accident. Moles and armadillos have torn my yard to shreds. Guess i won't be having any guests over, one of them might turn an ankle! Paintball date coming soon. Anybody with experience planning these things let me know.

personwhocares

A person should to be held for their on negligences. The law should read if you enter you enter at your own RISK!!! Especially, when they know that they are entering land that has posted all over it NO TRESPASSING!!! I know this I saw the signs for myself and I did have permission to be there.

People that are sue happy should remember. What goes around comes around. You will pay for the evils things you do. Just read your Bible. If you don't have one go and purchase you one and read it.

Only Sane One

It is unbelievable to me to still see the ignorance coming out of Harrison and the surrounding areas. People seem to think they know about this when in fact, they know very little. Once again, he had PERMISSION to be on the land. And yes, when you have PERMISSION to be on someone's property, you can be held liable for injuries that occur.

arkintosh42, Yes, the cable was put there with intent to harm. The deed was surrendered because the Carrs could not pay what was ordered. As far as the number of acres, I am not sure.

Phil, so you are now comparing the Nances to Osama Bin Laden?! Wow, I didn’t think your credibility could be any less but you proved me wrong. And I have no idea who Hasan is. Maybe you mean Hussein and if so, your credibility continues its downward spiral.

CLA1968

I agree with everyone on here that says "this was a BS Judgement". That kid should have been arrested for trespassing not given the property. I wouldn't dream of suing the owners if I was the one in the wrong. AGAIN.....THIS IS BS.

lagr08

I have always thought Dogpatch a most excellent location for a paintball war but I never got to have one there(you see, the land wasn't mine to use). I now have decided to go forth with the battle and have even spoken to several of my son's HS friends, needless to say they are all in.

Let me say I do not know nor have ever had the pleasure of meeting the Nance clan, but judging from the comments on here from the few that do I can tell they are a mighty fine bunch. I know very little of their past but from what i do know I can be almost 100% positive they'll have no problem whatsoever with this little event. I will get the time and date out to all ASAP.

arkintosh42

First of to Kelly, I'm sorry you and your friends have had to suffer. I don't feel I have enough knowledge of this case to pass any judgment on either side so I'll refrain from that.

I do have a couple of questions to anyone in the know....

Am I understanding it right in thinking the ruling went in favor of the Nance's mainly because the cable was considered to be put there with intent to harm?

Also, how many acres of land are involved?

arkie1

So, Phil...does the number of posts make one's comments more credible...DUHHH!

Apparently your 74 posts vs. john q's 2 posts must make you 37 times smarter than him, am I correct here???? [unsure]

dgoddard

What I learned from all this is that I'm liable for any injury that happens on my property, regardless of whether or not the person has my permission to be there. Now that is scary.

personwhocares

God only knows every headache and nightmare that vandals, thieves, and the land everyone calls Dogpatch caused the Carrs. Now the Nances have the problem.

john q

Clearly every atv rider should be wearing full body armor. I don't think that it's in any atv manual you should wear neck protection to safeguard against malicious traps. If you should be expected to do that, why stop at neck protection and why not a bullet-proof vest?

And yes, obviously, the Carrs are at fault, as you said, a jury found that out.

This is my 3rd post, just for phil. Sorry I don't hang around and post on such prestigious sites such as the harrison daily times as much as you.

personwhocares

I meant it will be "their" headache and the world worst nightmare now!!!!

personwhocares

If people would only fear what God thinks about them and live their life accordingly, then everything would be alot better in this World.

Now, I just want everyone to know that the Carrs were only trying to protect their land from trespassers, that were stealing everything from there. If they tried to do anything to improve Dogpatch the thieves & vandals would steal there building materials and destroy the improvements. Now that it has been awarded to the Nances it will be the headache and worlds worst nightmare.

Phil Graydon

So John Q, with your second post ever... your question is about neck protection? Tell you what, just pick a search engine of your choice and type "neck protection" in the search bar. You will find literally hundreds of products.

But by all means, lets not put any fault on the rider of the ATV.

Now I understand why the jury pool is so shallow.

john q

Where do you buy neck helmets?

Phil Graydon

Frankie, Sane One, et al....

After Hsn Citizen posted the link to the entire case summation, I went there and read it in its entirety for fear that I had reacted too quickly. Perhaps some of us (meaning you) aren't able to read. You have chosen to believe and take for gospel one side's story in the "He said, He said" saga. For me, it doesn't matter who's telling the truth on that part. The facts are simple and straight forward.

A cable, in and of itself, can't hurt anyone. It takes someone riding an ATV, without a helmet, against the manufacturers recommendations at what is obviously a high rate of speed, to turn a cable into a deadly "weapon". Who was more at fault here? That's rhetorical of course because I already know you have abdicated all personal responsibility from Mr. Nance. Obviously, a jury and appellate judges agree with you and Mr. Nance has no responsibility to take care of himself.

To my original statement, I don't know the Nance's. I also didn't know McVeigh, Bin Laden or Hasan. Yet judging them by the fruits of their labor, I know I wouldn't care for them much. Perhaps I'm gifted in that regard. Heck, I might be downright exceptional when it comes to my ability to read people. I'm sure the Nance's are happy with the decision and kudos to them. But if they think this tragedy is all on the former owners, they are dead wrong.

Happy Face

How old was this kid when he got hurt, and how old is he now?

Melissa81

The system WORKED? Yeah, my rear end. And how was anyone injured intentionally? Someone got injured TRESPASSING on private property. There is a huge difference.

john q

Don't write to your representative about this. It went to court in a jury trial. It was upheld in appeals. The system worked.

People like maegan bell that think you can try injure people intentionally and should get away with it need to die in a fire you retard. I'm tired of anarchists like this that want to take the law into their own hands.

maegan bell

Is is completely outrageous that someone should be awarded the assets of another whose land they were trespassing on and hurt themselves on. That is ridiculous. This judge should be removed from his post because clearly he is not fit to make decisions that are logical or just.

PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES ABOUT THIS.

You can contact John Boozman (who wants to be part of the US Senate). So lets make sure we have a law system that works FOR not AGAINST us.

CLICK HERE TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS TO JOHN BOOZMAN:
www(dot)boozmanforarkansas(dot)com/contact

If you do nothing and just let this case slide by you are making it okay for them to set a precedent that should someone break into your house and cut themselves on the glass they broke to get in, you will have to give them your home and property.

THIS IS INSANE! STOP THE INJUSTICE. This place is a piece of Arkansas history! And they are just going to give it away to someone who was ILLEGALLY TRESPASSING ON THE LAND. Just crazy.

PS: just before this ruling was made i was at the property speaking with the caretaker. the owners of this land CARED about the park and were trying to clean it up during their free time so that the place wouldn't just be lost to the elements. They were all about preserving Dogpatch, its history, and its future. now its just in the hands of some greedy people who clearly can't follow or understand basic rules of society and are merely looking to get off it as quickly as they can.

Its a shame anyone would make such an ignorant ruling. I'm rarely (if ever) ashamed of my state, but I have to say this time, well this time I'm just completely embarrassed.

If they boy couldn't properly make it around a cable that was hung ACROSS THE ROAD AT NECK HEIGHT then he clearly WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION...was probably more concerned with the girl (Jessica Voros) who was with him. Maybe HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO RUN AROUND THE PROPERTY IF HE CAN'T PROPERLY OPERATE AN ATV OR STAY AWARE ENOUGH OF HIS SURROUNDINGS TO NOT GET HURT.

In any case, it certainly should not be the park owner's responsibility to award him financial for his being a complete dumbass. What a bunch of low lives.

maegan bell

I read the entire case. THEY WERE TRESPASSING. Just because something happened while Mr. Carr "went looking for the elder Carr" does not mean they were allowed to be there.

frankieGwizz

i saw where it happened. it wasnt hung on a building. you can see the cable marks on the trees. and how can this kid carry a steel cable but not some florescent ribbons or anything. nearly weightless. i dont know why youd block one and not the other. unless he decided to do half his job and return later. if that was the case itd be negligence not malicious. look it up. either way. you guys can come up with a million different dumb reasons to blame the Nances. but the decision was a landslide with the local jury and the Arkansas supreme court. everyone on this forum may think they figured out the loop holes and the reasons to call it unjust,. but lets just leave it alone. none of us are professionals. nor judges. the law is the law and if the state says the Nances were in the right than so be it. they had concrete proof. the Carrs were inconsistent since before this even happened.

PHIL!! - you're still my hero. im proud that you can call the nance's lowlifes and then say you've never met them. ive never laughed so hard over a dumb comment like that. ill remember it forever.
[beam] has it sunk in how dumb you look now? i hope it sinks deep

thoughtful1

as far as i know the cable was hung by the building at the far end by the road so its not quite in the middle of the road and it said he was on some kind a scooters so he may have not been able to carry everything required to block both roads but i dont know its over and done with hopefully the new owner can do better with it then what the last ones did

frankieGwizz

considering the extensive damage to his neck, i doubt the cable hit anything else besides his neck. think about it. and if the kid who hung it didn't have access to safety ribbons, why hang it. and if he was going to block the other road. why leave before blocking the other road. AND WHY WAS IT HUNG IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARK NOT BLOCKING ANYTHING (especially the property line which is what the carrs said in the deposition. so we can already see they lied once. and if you read on, you'll find many more lies.) you're right though. you can argue forever over this case and none of you will solve anything. whats done is done and there's no changing that. although some of you have the bright idea to go do it to yourselves. good luck with that. his wreck, injuries, and recovery sound like a blast and totally worth it. NOT.
kellybean- you said it in one sentence "You can't put a price on life" im sure if he could hit the rewind button he wouldn't care about money. or land. he'd probably just want his life and health back. [wink]

thoughtful1

its all basically two sides of opinions fact is wether or not you have permision to be on someones property doesnt mean you should sue them if you get hurt no matter how it happened unless they themselves hurt you... i mean seriously a 16 yr old hung a cable who knows his intentions better then him self. there might have been two roads did any ask if he planned on blocking the other one too. did any ask where he got the idea or how high he put it. did any prove that it didnt hit any where else either on the atv or the boys chest before it caught him where it did? i've seen cables blocking roads and paths in many place the park service uses them .... so theres something to it plus it mentions he planned on marking the cable with flags or something. did any one prove that he didnt have any access to the appropriate stuff to mark it with ? i doubt it, this case almost sounds like it was predetermined who was going to when. seeing how theres a lot of un answered questions

frankieGwizz

GUYS! why dont you just google the nance vs. carr case on google and read it. quit the assumptions. quit the accusations. quit the im right your wrong stuff. they had permission. they were not tress passing. and the cable was no where near the property line. it was within the property. on a road that did not block anything. he could have taken a left instead of a right and ended up in the same spot. but there was a cable on the right hand road. thats the fact. plain and simple. its in the documents. and all that charity money was raised at events and through donations by the good people of arkansas. it was not stolen. thats just a stupid remark. they just raised thousands of dollars through an organization called "relay for life". i doubt you've heard of it though. you seem very stubborn and close minded. all i did was read the court docs. its all there.

ozarkman - a discussion forum is NOT factual. and neither is the article. like i said. do your homework like a good boy and read the legal court documents.

phil - you're my hero. haha

trent4

As hard as it may be, try and ignore Phil Graydon. He's a pompous jerk who contributes nothing more than personal attacks here, and his intelligence is unlikely to dwarf a flea's.

Common Sense

Kelly.. I'm sorry you had to go through all of that and I'm sorry that you have to see people post mean things about your friends.

I VERY sorry that the Harrison Daily Times did such a poor job of stating the facts.

Before bashing anyone for getting upset that the Nance's got the land, go back and read the article. There is nothing there to indicate he had permission to be on the land or that the wire was put there with malicious intent.

People only know what was reported..and it does not paint the Nance's in a good light.

I would almost think the article was written to evoke this kind of response.. otherwise why would it be written in such a way?

Only Sane One

Phil,

Again, you are basing you comments not on fact but on rumor or assumption. If you would read you would see they had PERMISSION to be on the property and this act was premeditated. And the reason they got the property was because the defendants could not pay what they were ordered to pay. If your intelligence trumps mine like you claim, you would surely know to have the facts on something before you make ignorant comments.

kellybean

phil graydon.

maybe you're 'more intelligent', but you're a terrible person.
Saying the Nances are low life's without even knowing them is ignorant.

The Nances didn't intend on taking the property, the judge granted them the property...

It seems as though that you are casting judgment upon the wrong party.

They had permission and I know multiple families who go out there to ride and explore.

Phil Graydon

Only Sane One,

I'm more than certain my intelligence dwarfs yours. That isn't the issue. I can tell most people from the fruit they bear. If joyriding on another persons property, I get hurt, whose fault is it? I don't care how much they give away in charity. Its much easier to be charitable when you take it from someone else first, so let them now give Dogpatch away.

The cable did what it was designed to do. Keep people from going down the road. Furthermore, I bet they haven't been back... until now... since they own it.

If you're involved with it, why do you care what I think? You folks "won" and in the process insured that I would never, in a million years, willingly let you on my property. Not that it would matter of course. This is the reason so many are suspect of anyone coming to their property or home.

I believe the newspaper needs to restate the basic facts in an article like this. The facts mentioned in this discussion forum tell more of what happened than anything in the paper. The fact that these kids were trespassing was the first big fact left out. The severe injuries sustained should have been mentioned and any oher major facts. People who enter other people's land, especially after being warned to stay out should have been responsible for any injurys sustained by them. I still feel compassion for those injured but what does it take to bring some responsibility back into our society. I believe it is a sad day when a group's property is taken from them by a person illegially on their property. Once again I still am sympathic toward those hurt. I'm sorry to say that what should have been a good lesson to our society to not trespass even after being warned instead sends a message that we can enter someones property and end up owning it except for the big chunk probably taken by the Little Rock lawyers.

kellybean

:) your comments made me cry. THANK YOU

Only Sane One

Kellybean, You couldnt be more correct! I thought I was the only sane one commenting on this but it looks like I was wrong!! Thank you for your support

Only Sane One

Mr. Homeless, FAKE an injury?! Do you have even the slightest idea about the ordeal Pruett went through? He spent months in ICU, worked his rear end off for over a year to learn how to talk again, had vertebra in his neck fused together and metal rods inserted to help stabilize them. Yep, that sounds pretty fake to me. Again, unless you have something intelligent to say, please refrain from commenting.

seeddings, Way to reinforce the fact that Arkansas is full of a bunch of backwoods hillbillys like yourself. "Better off just shooting them"?! Go crawl back into your hole.

Thoughtful1, Yes he has been teaching snowboarding lessons. And.... I don’t see your point. He has made a remarkable recovery and he is taking advantage of it. Wouldn’t you do the same? The doctors did not even think he was going to live but because of his fight and determination, with a lot of prayer added in as well, he has made a mostly full recovery. Yes he does have trouble catching his breath but do we criticize a person for making the most out of the cards they were dealt? I guess you do. Yes he does have trouble with gagging but what does that have to do with drinking a beer with your dad? I am very glad that he looks like he is doing well on Facebook. Its much better than him not having a Facebook at all. Again, if you don’t have something intelligent to say, please refrain from commenting. By the looks of your writing, I won’t see any more comments from you.

Pruett is a great person and instead of ridiculing him, we should look up to him. I don’t know of anyone else who could come back from the injuries he received from this selfless act, and have the fortitude and determination live the quality of life he is currently living. I just hope I can live up to the example he has set.

Only Sane One

Phil Graydon, you have lost all credibility in this discussion. You said you have never met the Nances but you call them low lifes?! That makes about as much sense as wiping before you go to the bathroom. You have zero idea how many thousands of dollars have been donated or raised for charity because of the Nance family. Unless you have something intelligent to say, please refrain from commenting.

kellybean

Reading this bring tears to my eyes.
Do you guys realize you're talking about a young boy who was just trying to have a good time with his family and girlfriend on a sunny day and almost LOST HIS LIFE?

Can you imaging being the girlfriend on the back of the atv, holding the head of your boyfriend as he's bleeding to death waiting for the helicopter to come save him?

Can you imaging being the father, walking up on the scene of your SON who's just been DECAPITATED??

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

That cable was placed there for no reason... they knew people were on the property... of course these people had the right to sue.

A father almost lost his oldest son. Two young boys almost lost a brother.
And I almost lost a best friend.

They were most definitely NOT doing witchcraft! Where do you get your information from? THE HARRISON TIMES?

The fact that you can talk so horribly about a situation, that was so tragic for so many people is so ridiculous.

He was bedridden for months, missed out on most of his high school and had to be fed through a tube in his stomach. Had to breathe through a tube in his neck.

It's a miracle he's alive today. It took him months to recover, and years to get his voice back.

If I were him, and I had just recovered from being in a horrible accident- I wouldn't sit in bed for the rest of my life- I'd go out there and do all the things I could do and LIVE. I can't believe you guys are saying "he's looks fine on facebook"

Its a struggle for him to breathe everyday. He's an amazing snowboarder and he's been doing it his whole life, he's not just going to give all that up now that he's had a second chance at life.

He constantly has to worry about someone hitting his neck, or jolting him the wrong way and KILLING him.

"he was better off just shooting them"?? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
You're a mother.. when your child goes and does something stupid, would you want someone to JUST SHOOT THEM!?

He's gone to dogpatch his whole life and the Nance family has lived in Harrison for years and years. These people aren't criminals, they're just adrenalin junkies looking for a fun time in a really cool abandoned mining town. He has no plans to tear it down.

If the people who owned the land could afford to pay what the judge said they owed then the Nances wouldn't have taken the land. You can't put a price on life, and most all of the money awarded to them JUST paid for the hospital bills.

It breaks my heart and makes me sick to read the things you have said about this boy. Where is the humanity?

Only Sane One

Haha wow!!! There are a ton of ignorant people on here. If you don’t know the facts of this case, please don’t open your mouth. I was involved with this case and I can tell you that cable was put there with the intent of causing bodily harm after they were given permission to ride on the property.

Sharlista

Well as long as we are talking rumors, I've been told the Nance's had been told to stay off the property before the day of the accident. If that is true or if the property was posted, jury or judge, this is a total miscarriage of justice. Our justice system is broken, if you want your eyes opened, go sit through court just one day.

public citizen

Ok, I will concede that the article doesn't have all the facts mentioned, and to be fair to the paper, this has been going on for years. But as somebody else mentioned, Arkansas doesn't hold you responsible for accidents on your property. What happened is the jury found they hung the cable knowing it could hurt somebody. If somebody went in one of those buildings and it fell down on them, tough luck. Those buildings are old. If somebody went in one of those buildings and fell into your spike pit you set up, you're liable.

mike smith

What's this remark about guns? Somehow everytime somebody says guns are involved then you get some yahoo jumping on and saying we need to ban guns and alcohol. This state gets worse and worse all the time. I should be able to hold my neighbors hostage anytime I feel like if I see them on my land.

CThorson

Does this mean we can now go on private/POSTED property, fall down thus injuring ourselves...and eventually own the property?

amerfin

Like or not, that's capitalism.
These people capitalized on an opportunity, and profited from it.

splashy

It was a jury trial, so the judge had nothing to do with how it was decided. The jury made the decision, the judge just ran the proceedings.

I'm hoping it will be allowed to go back to nature, but that's probably a dream.

I guess anyone that puts up a fence or cable on their land should make sure to put lots and lots of orange flagging on it.

thoughtful1

public citizens right it was settle in court whose to say the carrs wanted to settle it that with booze and guns (no proof again) whose to say they even drink or use guns the paper doesnt say who was at the handle of the gun.. and whose to say the cable was hung at decapitation height. is there no proof that it might have caught some where else before it hit the boy say on the fourwheeler or his chest besides what is decapitation height 4 feet , 5 feet, 6 feet heck if your on horse it could be 9 feet or just the hieght he just so happened to get hurt from. if he was on a horse im sure he'd been fine ..or like public citizen said the cable would still be at decapitation height and now the new owner would be a horse right... be cuz that would be so called justice

Johnny Raincrowe

You are about to witness what happens when a dog catches up with the truck. Newton County is about to end up the proud owner of a derelict amusement park and all the liabilities that go along with it.

Happy Face

Will these new owners be able to afford the yearly insurance and taxes on old Dogpatch? Will 'they have enough insurance in case someone (Heaven forbid) gets 'injured' at the park again?? Well, I don't like to speak bad of these 'new owners' of Dogpatch, but I hope a mighty wind blows every cotton pickin' building down and destroys the park. Again, I don't like to speak bad of them.

How can they live with themselves???

public citizen

since thoughtful1 is throwing in stuff. Arkansas law doesn't call it an accident if you allow people to ride atvs on your land and then you hang up a wire at decapitation height. The law did matter, it was settled in a court rather than out in the woods with some booze and shotguns like the Carrs apparently wanted.

mike smith

I just thought I'd add that whoever said Judge Womack is a liberal needs to watch their back. I'll beat you to death with your own pecker if I meet you. He's a Christian and a Republican. There's no need for hateful language like that.

thoughtful1

since gotlogic is throwing stuff in here arkansas state law say when a property is posted no tresspassing that anyone other then the owners has to have written permission and i havent seen any proof of this and another state law say if someone is using ur property for recreational use that the owners arent liable for accidents..... but the law didnt matter in this case

thoughtful1

well accident site wasent a well travel road it actually fenced off before the accident by the old wooden fence that use to surround dogpatch and then the fence line got cleared making an opening for ppl to drive thru hence the cable and as far as the witch craft stuff not true at all tho there is some groups in the area that do practice and have practice near dogpatch

gotlogic

just thought I'd throw this in... they had permission to ride there. just sayin.

mike smith

I heard they were practicing witchcraft and that's why the owner didn't want them around. Can anybody confirm that? I've lived in Newton county for a long time and these kids and their whatever it is they do scare me anymore. If they had been doing that satanic stuff on my land, I would have shot them. With these courts now, I'd probably get away with it apparently.

gmckay

When someone travel across your land for seven years it become public by adverse possession and can be used by anyone. I do not like this law as we lost in court by this law about 25 years ago. The problem of Dog Patch was that people drove this road for years.
George Mckay

B Richards

What the [censored][censored][censored][thumbdown]

homeless

yup....good job judge. looks to me that you can break the law...get caught by the real victim....fake an injury....sue...and get paid. i certainly hope these idiots who won the judgement from an obviously stupid and liberal judge....can't pay the property tax and lose it to newton county. then maybe the county judge down there will give the sheriff some of his budget back.

maybe some good will come of this....doubt it though.

Common Sense

silly @thoughtful1 how much energy does it take to sit on a snowboard all day?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1442820739

Answer.. a lot... this guy is clearly full of it... Sometimes I wish Karma was real.

oneineverycrowd

I'm with Robert - guess we all need to load up the wheelers and get us a theme park! [cool]

thoughtful1

Clearly no property rights, yes pruits cousin said he got held at gun point but at the time if any one was to check it out they would find that a shot gun was already taken and being held at the sherrifs office and that a shotgun incident had already occured when fourwheelers tried running over some ppl at dogpatch... even i can go get records and say i was held at gun point and if you read what was testified about pruit that he his voice is getting better but that he runs out of breath quickly and cannot exert himself for very long. He also testified that he cannot move his head very much and that he has problems with gagging and coughing while eating. Does anyone consider that hes been teaching ski school in colorado since this accident . it shouldnt be possible if there testimony is true... im sure he doesnt drink alcohol either? right ? cuz of his gagging problem . well looks like he does pretty good on facebook . But apperently its easier to give someones property away before all the facts are considered. pruit even testified he saw the boy go up the hill and come back down... if so how could he not see him hanging the cable?

hrsnrsdnt

All this case is telling us weather it was granted by the Judge or a jury that it is totally fine for me or anyone else to tresspass on someones property EVEN tho they have it plainly posted " NO TRESPASSING" ..... I just dont get it.. What in the world is happening to our RIGHTS and our judicial system....

JustMy Opinion

No one should be surprised that the Nance family has taken possession of the theme park. It has had a colorful life and has had several equally colorful owners through the years since the Raney's first opened a trout fishing attraction there. Rumors about the ownership and (mis)management of the property have been rampant since the theme park opened...and closed. It seems ironic that a banker would acquire sole, clear ownership of the property because, as we have all discovered over the past years, banks are not above involvement in unscrupulous real estate aquisitions.

hsncitizen

And as always, there is more to it then what you read here, as they do not go into detail of the case.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20ARCO%2020101216012.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

After you read that, THEN cast your opinon/judgement.

hsncitizen

798wife is correct. The lawsuit was decided by a JURY - not the system. And when they did not pay up, the deed was transfered.

Right or wrong - the system worked. Blame the jury, not the system.

798wife

was this decided by a JURY? If so, blame them-they decided the amounts, Not the system.

Robert

Guess I need to hop on my 4-wheeler and go explore the old Dog Patch (I always wanted to own an amusement park).[scared][thumbdown][scared]

Jackie

WOW!!!
where is the justice for the Land owner? why do we even have laws?

Ridiculous as the Woman that spilled HOT coffee in her lap from McDonald's!

No Morals, No Common Sense!

My goodness, no wonder our country is in the mess it is in!!! [crying]

Doodad

In all my years I didn't think crime pays . . . . . Silly Me ! ! ! !

Melissa81

Wow. That's all I have to say. [censored]

fear-for-our-country

Legal system - disgusting, that is all I have to say about it. We live in America, we should be protected from stupidity the likes of the Nances'. Hang your heads in shame, because you deserve nothing for breaking the law. Enjoy your park, but you better watch out - someone may trespass.

seeddings

Well, now we all now where to go and have some fun at!! And the bonus is that if you get hurt, too, you can soon be the new owners of Dogpatch!

He was better off just shooting them.

Ridiculous.

proudmomof3

Look at the last name of who was rewarded! Guess if you have a certain last name, you get what you want when you you want it.

CityZen

The legal system is a joke... and it's on us.

worker

this ruling is absolutely ridiculous-I guess if I want somebody's land, I need to get injured on it (through my own fault) first

Phil Graydon

The Nance's are low lifes. I have never met them, but judging by the arrogance to defy a landowner and do something like this is pathetic. A law that allows this type of theft is even more pathetic.

Pathetic.

TuneTut

The only thing this case has done is teach people that it is absolutely ok to do what you want wherever and whenever - regardless of laws or personal rights of others. And as an added bonus whenever you do, and some sort of problem arises from your actions, you get rewarded. I just can not believe this would be allowed. I really just can't believe that the people suing think setting this sort of example is ok.

I was under the impression that if you go onto property that does not belong to you - it was against the law...These people should be ashamed of themselves.

Common Sense

Makes sense to me... illegally come on my land and get hurt, we sue you and take your land...

Pathetic...

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.