Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals finding that Plaintiff was an invitee when she was injured while visiting the monument marking her son's grave at a cemetery maintained by the City of Versailles, holding that the cemetery was not obligated to inspect and repair the monument, regardless of Plaintiff's status.Plaintiff was injured when the headstone marking the grave of her son dislodged from the base and toppled onto Plaintiff's foot. Plaintiff brought this suit against the City for negligence in maintaining her son's monument. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding that Plaintiff had failed to establish that the City owed her a duty to maintain or repair the headstone. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Plaintiff was a business invitee and that the City owed her an affirmative duty to inspect and repair the monument. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the City did not owe Plaintiff a duty with regard to the monument. View "City of Versailles v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's conclusion that the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) and two of its divisions were entitled to sovereign immunity in this action and dismissing all claims against them, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff was injured in a collision between his bicycle and a police cruiser driver by a LFUCG employee. Plaintiff brought this negligence action, arguing that LFUCG's purchase of a retained-limit insurance policy, purchased for coverage beyond the limits of its self insurance policy, waived LFUCG's sovereign immunity up to policy limits. The trial court concluded that the LFUCG defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly held that the LFUCG defendants were immune from suit. View "Independence Bank v. Welch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision affirming the opinion, workers' compensation award, and order of the administrative law judge (ALJ) determining that Appellee was permanently and totally disabled, holding that there was no error.Appellee was injured during the course and scope of his employment. An ALJ determined that Appellee was permanently, totally disabled. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellee's testimony regarding his psychological medical conditions was competent evidence; (2) the ALJ did not rely solely upon psychological testimony to find Appellee was permanently, totally disabled; and (3) there was substantial evidence in the record to sustain the ALJ's opinion and award. View "Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board reversing the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) granting permanent partial disability benefits (PPD) to Richard Russell but finding that certain medical expenses were submitted untimely and were therefore non-compensable, holding that there was no error.Russell sustained a work-related injury to his right arm and sought workers' compensation benefits. The ALJ found that Russell did not timely submit his medical bills, so they were not compensable, but otherwise granted PPD benefits. The Board reversed, concluding that the medical bills were not submitted untimely. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Russell timely submitted his medical expenses. View "Wonderfoil, Inc. v. Russell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this action alleging negligent operation of a resident swimming pool, negligent supervision, and gross negligence, holding that a property owner owes a reasonable duty of care to a guest whom the owner invites onto the owner's property to participate in an activity.Defendants hosted a pool party and cookout at their home for a baseball team made up of seven and eight-year-old boys. Plaintiff's son drowned in the pool during the party. Plaintiffs brought this action alleging negligence resulting in the wrongful death of their son. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Defendants, and the court of appeals affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was the applicability of the common law distinctions of licensee and invitee in identifying the scope of duty owed by Defendants owed to the child. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that Defendants owed a duty of reasonable care to the child, and the determination of breach of such duty should be left to a jury's discretion. View "Bramlett v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals remanding this case to the trial court and reinstated the circuit court's domestic violence protective order in this case, holding that the trial court's factual findings were readily apparent upon review of the record and, therefore, remand was not required.The circuit court issued a domestic protective order against Jason McCoy restraining him from having contact with E.S., the daughter of McCoy's girlfriend. The trial court made oral findings of fact and conclusions of law and filled out Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Form 275.3, order of protection. The court of appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case, concluding that the trial court failed to make written factual findings as required by Ky. R. Civ. P. 52.01. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that family courts are not required to transcribe their clear oral findings in protective order cases when they also completely and accurately fill out AOC Form 275.3 and issue a written order explicitly incorporating their clear oral factual findings. View "Smith v. McCoy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the opinion and order of the circuit court which upheld the district court's entry of an interpersonal protection order (IPO) between an eleven-year-old petitioner and a thirteen-year-old respondent, holding that any IPO hearing involving either a minor petitioner or respondent must be made confidential by the presiding court.Jane Smith filed a petition for an IPO on behalf of her eleven-year-old son, Brian. The respondent was John Doe, age thirteen. The district court entered an IPO against Doe, and the circuit court affirmed. The court of appeals reversed on several grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in holding that the general division of the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to preside over this case; (2) a guardian ad litem must be appointed to unrepresented minor petitioners and respondents in IPO cases; and (3) it was reversible error for the district court to permit Doe's mother to represent Doe in lieu of appointing a guardian ad litem to represent him. View "Smith v. Doe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this personal injury action, holding that the trial court properly granted summary judgment.Roy Prather was crossing a path between barns at a horse sale at Keeneland Association when a horse broke loose from his handler. While attempting to flee, Prather fell and fractured his shoulder. Prather and his wife (together, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Keeneland and Sallee Horse Vans, Inc., the transportation company that agreed to transport the horse to its destination (together, Defendants), alleging negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that the claims were barred by Ky. Rev. Stat. 247.402, a provision of the Farm Animals Activity Act (FAAA). The court of appeals reversed, raising a new legal theory sua sponte. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the FAAA applied and that summary judgment was properly granted. View "Keeneland Ass'n v. Prather" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that a police officer was entitled to qualified official immunity from liability for the decision to initiate a police pursuit that ended in a fatal automobile accident, holding that that the officer was shielded from liability.The deceased child's estate and the parents of the other injured children in this case initiated civil actions against Defendants, including the officer. The officer moved to dismiss the actions against him on immunity grounds. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that he was not entitled to immunity. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly held that the officer's actions were discretionary and that Appellants did not establish that the officer did not act in good faith. View "Meinhart v. Louisville Metro Government" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus to direct Judge Stockton Wood of the Fleming Circuit Court to issue various orders in her favor, holding that a writ of mandamus was inappropriate.Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint against radiologists and health care providers alleging medical negligence, spoliation, abuse of process, obstruction of justice, and other claims. During a two-month period the trial court entered fourteen separate orders. Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus directing the court to issue orders in her favor. The court of appeals denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an adequate remedy by appeal existed for each of the errors Plaintiff alleged. View "Johnson v. Honorable Stockton Wood" on Justia Law