Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Davis v. Parham, 362 Ark. 352, 208 S.W.3d 162 (2005). 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. Id.

"Under current Arkansas law, when a person's death is caused by the negligence of another, two causes of action arise." Davis v. Parham , 362 Ark. 352, 208 S.W.3d 162, 167 (2005). First, the estate can maintain a survival action under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16–62–101 for claims the decedent personally could have brought against a tortfeasor had death not occurred.

The parties agree that the constitutionality of this statute is analyzed under the rational basis standard. Davis v. Parham, 362 Ark. 352, 363, 208 S.W.3d 162, 169 (2005). Plaintiff has the burden of overcoming the presumption of the statute's constitutionality.

"Under current Arkansas law, when a person's death is caused by the negligence of another, two causes of action arise." Davis v. Parham, 362 Ark. 352, 360, 208 S.W.3d 162, 167 (2005). "First, there is a cause of action for the estate under the survival statute, and, second, there is a cause of action for the statutory beneficiaries under the wrongful-death statute."

T precluded from receiving any damages for their suffering. In Davis v. Parham, 362 Ark. 352, 361-362, 208 S.W.3d 162, 168 (2005)[,] the Arkansas Supreme Court reiterated earlier cases which, in the context of resolving statute of limitations issues, addressed a basic principle regarding the interplay between the Medical Malpractice Act and the Wrongful Death Act. The Court, quoting an earlier case, stated:

Neither party asks this court to abolish the doctrine, and this court is bound to follow prior case law under the doctrine of stare decisis, a policy designed to lend predictability and stability to the law. See Davis v. Parham, 362 Ark. 352, 208 S.W.3d 162 (2005). In the cases found persuasive by this court, we found “that the risk is one which the fireman has engaged to encounter by virtue of his employment and one which it is his duty to accept, and the person who negligently causes the fire has therefore not breached a duty owed the fireman.”

Thus, we have applied a rational-basis test to challenges made under this constitutional provision. Davis v. Parham, 362 Ark. 352, 208 S.W.3d 162 (2005); Adams v. Arthur, 333 Ark. 53, 969 S.W.2d 598 (1998). Under the rational-basis test, legislation is presumed constitutional and rationally related to achieving any legitimate governmental objective under any reasonably conceivable fact situation.

" An act of the General Assembly is in practicality prejudged because it is presumed constitutional. Davis v. Parham, 362 Ark. 352, 208 S.W.3d 162 (2005). Until an act of the General Assembly is properly challenged in a trial court, it is constitutional.

The law remains the same today. Davis v. Parham, 362 Ark. 352, 208 S.W.3d 162 (2005). Until someone challenges the new school system in circuit court and obtains a ruling of the circuit court that the system is unconstitutional, then the system is constitutional.

While most wrongful-death actions must be brought "within three (3) years of the death of the person alleged to have been wrongfully killed," Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-102(c)(1), a wrongful-death action alleging medical malpractice must be brought within the two-year statute of limitations for such claims. See Davis v. Parham, 362 Ark. 352, 362, 208 S.W.3d 162, 168 (2005).