Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Allen Lehmann, a former ordained pastor in the Assembly of God church, was indicted for multiple counts of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse. Approximately one month after the indictment issued, the alleged victims filed a civil action against Lehmann and various Assembly of God entities based on essentially the same allegations covered by the indictment. The Commonwealth moved to intervene in the civil action and stay discovery. The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion, determining that a stay of civil discovery until the completion of Lehmann’s criminal trial would promote justice and fairness. Lehmann sought a writ of mandamus seeking to have the trial court’s order vacated the civil discovery resumed. The court of appeals declined to issue a writ, concluding that Lehmann failed to prove he was without an adequate appellate remedy and that there was no genuine exigency meriting use of the court’s writ authority. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a writ in this instance was unnecessary, and therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in staying civil discovery pending the completion of Lehmann’s criminal trial. View "Lehmann v. Hon. Susan Gibson" on Justia Law

Defendant owned land that was adjoined by Plaintiff’s property. In the course of cutting timber for Defendant, a logger trespassed on Plaintiff’s property and cut and sold a substantial amount of timber on her property. Plaintiff sued for trespass, seeking damages for the missing timber and the damage to the land. The trial court awarded stumpage value and damages but did not award treble damages based on its finding that Defendant had no intent to remove timber from Plaintiff’s property. The court of appeals (1) vacated the circuit court’s ruling on treble damages and remanded for additional findings and further proceedings, and (2) affirmed on Defendant’s cross-appeal. The Supreme Court (1) upheld the court of appeals in its affirming the trial court in the determination that Defendant was liable for damages for trespass; but (2) reversed the court of appeals in determining that Defendant was subject to treble damages, as there was insufficient evidence to prove that Defendant intended to convert Plaintiff’s timber for his own use. View "Penix v. Delong" on Justia Law

David McCarty, the employee of an independent contractor, was killed during the installation of a garage door on a building at a coal mine site operated by Covol Fuels. McCarty’s estate brought a wrongful death action against Covol, alleging that Covol was negligent per se for violating certain coal mine safety statutes and regulations. A federal district court granted summary judgment for Covol on all claims, concluding that McCarty was not within the class of persons protected by Kentucky’s mine safety laws and that his death did not occur under the circumstances that Kentucky’s mine safety laws were intended to prevent. The Estate appealed. The Supreme Court subsequently granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to certify the law in regards to whether the statutes and regulations relied upon by the Estate were intended to protect individuals in McCarty's situation and to prevent the type of accident that caused McCarty’s death. The Supreme Court concluded that a subcontractor injured while installing a garage door on an unfinished building at a mine site may not maintain a wrongful death action against the mine operator under a negligence per se theory for alleged violations of Kentucky mining statutes and regulations. View "McCarty v. Covol Fuels No. 2, LLC" on Justia Law

Barbara Allgeier sustained serious injuries as a passenger on a bus operated by MV Transportation, Inc. Allgeier filed suit against MV, alleging that her injury was caused by the bus driver’s negligence for which MV was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior and that MV was negligent in hiring and supervising the bus driver. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Allgeier. Allgeier was awarded medical expenses in the amount of $74,630 and $4,100,000 as compensation for pain and suffering. The court of appeals affirmed the award of compensatory damages and reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Allgeier’s punitive damage claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals (1) did not err in affirming evidentiary rulings of the trial court relating to the bus driver’s past alcoholism; (2) did not err by reinstating Allgeier’s punitive damages claim; and (3) did not err by remanding the case for trial upon the issue of punitive damages alone instead of a complete retrial upon all issues presented in the original trial. View "MV Transp., Inc. v. Allgeier" on Justia Law

A Law Firm had an escrow account with a Bank and authorized an employee to sign checks on the account by herself. The employee began embezzling money from the Firm’s various escrow accounts by engaging in a scheme called “check-kiting,” which involved the employee writing and depositing checks between the Bank account and the Law Firm’s account at another bank. More than three years after the last activity on the Bank account the Law Firm sued the Bank, raising four claims, including violations of the Uniform Commercial Code and common-law causes of action. The court of appeals concluded that the claims were barred by the one-year repose period of Ky. Rev. Stat. 355.4-406. The Supreme Court affirmed on other grounds, holding that the claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations under Ky. Rev. Stat. 355.4-111. View "Mark D. Dean, P.S.C. v. Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co." on Justia Law

Appellant was injured while working for Employer, which had an insurance policy issued by Zurich American Insurance Company. The policy included an underinsured motorist (UIM) endorsement. After settling with the tortfeasor, Appellant sought damages from the UIM coverage in the Zurich policy. After Zurich refused Appellant’s claim, Appellant sued Zurich. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Zurich on the grounds that the UIM coverage included in the policy was the result of a mutual mistake in the making of the insurance contract. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting Appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of UIM coverage, holding that reformation of the insurance contract on the grounds of mutual mistake was improper because (1) the facts did not establish that at the time the insurance contract was formed, the minds of the contracting parties met with the common intent to execute a policy that excluded UIM coverage; and (2) Zurich did not assert the mistake or deny the existence of UIM coverage until after Appellant had released the tortfeasor. View "Nichols v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Judith Burton filed a complaint against Dr. Philip Trover, a radiologist, and the Trover Clinic Foundation (TCF), Dr. Trover’s employer, alleging (1) Dr. Trover misread CT scans of her lungs, thereby delaying the diagnosis of her lung cancer, and (2) TCF was vicariously liable for Dr. Trover’s alleged negligence and was negligent itself in credentialing. Burton died before tried, and her Estate revived the complaint with respect to TCF, which impleaded Dr. Trover. A jury entered a verdict for Dr. Trover, and the trial court dismissed all of the Estate’s claims. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred by not allowing the Estate to cross-examine Dr. Trover regarding the status of his Kentucky medical license, and the error was not harmless. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its its discretion by excluding the license-status evidence, given the potential for confusing the issues to be tried and the strong likelihood that it would cause unfair prejudice. View "Trover v. Estate of Burton" on Justia Law

Roger Collins died following an inpatient stay at Ridgeway Nursing Home & Rehabilitation Facility. Stella Collins, Roger's wife, subsequently brought an action against Ridgeway alleging wrongful death and nursing home neglect. After pretrial discovery, Ridgeway moved to disqualify Wilkes & McHugh (W&H), the lawfirm representing Collins, alleging that an investigator for W&H violated the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct by making contact with three of Ridgeway's employees. The trial court denied the motion. Ridgeway then sought a writ of mandamus seeking the dismissal of the claims brought against it or, alternatively, the disqualification of W&H. The court of appeals declined to issue the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in finding that Ridgeway had an adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise for the admission of unfairly and unethically obtained evidence. View "Ridgeway Nursing & Rehabilitation Facility, LLC v. Circuit Court " on Justia Law

Appellee filed suit against Appellants, seeking personal property damages and lost business income resulting from a vehicle collision in which a truck was damaged. The truck was owned by Appellee individually and used in his trucking business, an LLC. The LLC was not named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. After the trial court granted Appellants' motion for summary judgment as to the lost business income, the court granted Appellants a judgment on the pleadings due to Appellee's failure to comply with discovery orders. The court of appeals reversed, concluding, inter alia, that (1) Appellee could properly pursue his lost business claim in his own name because he was the sole owner of the LLC, and (2) Appellee had presented sufficient evidence to overcome the motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in determining that Appellee could bring a claim in his own name for any trucking business lost by the LLC; and (2) the discovery sanction imposed on Appellee was the functional equivalent of an order dismissing both claims, and as such, findings of fact and conclusions of law were required. View "Turner v. Andrew" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against a rehabilitation hospital where her husband was staying after Plaintiff became entangled in some wires strung along the side of her husband's bed and fell, fracturing her kneecap. The trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital, concluding that the hospital owed no duty of care to Plaintiff because the wires were an open and obvious condition. Before the court of appeals affirmed, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh, which modified Kentucky premises-liability law. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the court of appeals on a second appeal, holding (1) the foreseeability and duty analysis employed by the court of appeals in reaching its decision was incompatible with modern tort law trends; and (2) the analysis is now such that a court no longer makes a no-duty determination but, rather, makes a no-breach determination, which places the reasonable-foreseeability analysis in the hands of the jury. Remanded. View "Shelton v. Ky. Easter Seals Soc'y, Inc." on Justia Law