Annotated section 2-40-1302 (Repl. 2008) requires that all large animal carcasses be disposed of pursuant to these regulations. Kisner, Cole, and Hartford answered that they were without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations of the improper burial. A review of these pleadings demonstrates a factual dispute as to whether Mr. Elkins followed the regulations regarding the disposal of carcasses, see Young v. Dodson, 239 Ark. 143, 388 S.W.2d 94 (1965) (recognizing that violation of a law does not constitute negligence per se but is evidence of negligence), whether a trespass occurred, and whether Hartford, acting as the agent for Kisner and Cole, employed Mr. Smith to dispose of the carcasses that Mr. Elkins buried, see Tackett v. Merchant’s Security Patrol, supra (<HOLDING>). A factual dispute exists as to the
holding that certain fiduciary duty claims did not arise out of the underlying contractual provisions holding that a special relationship may arise from the factual circumstances of a particular case holding that where the contract affirmatively shows the parties intent to charge one party with a duty of care actionable negligence may be predicated upon that contractual duty holding that a duty of care may arise out of a contractual relationship between two parties holding a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty will not lie where the claim of breach is dependent upon the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties