Blog

A recent Kentucky lawsuit demonstrates the importance of obtaining ample evidence before filing a lawsuit. In Fimbres v. Garlock Equipment Co., a roofer was seriously injured when an asphalt kettle manufactured by the defendant exploded. The man apparently suffered significant burns over a large percentage of his body as a result of the explosion. Unfortunately, the injured man died from a prescription pain medication overdose about one month after the workplace accident. When it was manufactured, the asphalt kettle was equipped with an automatic monitoring device that was designed to keep the kettle from overheating. On the day of the tragic workplace accident, however, the device was not attached to the kettle. A roofing company worker apparently stated that the monitoring device was removed about one year before the explosion due to an equipment malfunction. According to the asphalt manufacturer’s user manual, the self-regulating monitor may be removed as long as the product is manually observed to avoid overheating. Following the roofer’s death, his mother filed a products liability and wrongful death lawsuit against the manufacturer of the asphalt kettle. According to the plaintiff, the equipment was defectively designed, and the manufacturer failed to properly warn the decedent regarding the dangerous product. The equipment manufacturer responded by filing a motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment means the moving party is asking a court to rule that there are no genuine questions of fact in a case and that the party is entitled to a verdict in his or her favor. Read More

In Big Spring Assembly of God, Inc. v. Stevenson, a youth minister for a church organized a camping trip with several teens. At one point during the trip, the minister took two children to his apartment in his personal automobile. While returning to the campground, the minister apparently allowed a 13-year-old to drive the vehicle. Sadly, the child lost control of the car and caused a wreck. The child died as a result of his injuries. Before law enforcement officials arrived, the minister allegedly asked the surviving youth to state the minister was driving at the time of the fatal accident. The child initially complied with the minister’s request but later admitted to police that the deceased 13-year-old was behind the wheel when the crash took place. After that, the estate of the deceased child filed a vicarious liability lawsuit against the church that employed the minister and sought damages as a result of the organization’s alleged negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the man. The decedent’s parents also sought damages for loss of consortium. A trial court found that both the minister and the child committed negligence as a matter of law and asked jurors to apportion damages over the child’s death. Since Kentucky is a pure comparative fault state, the amount of damages an at-fault defendant is required to pay will normally be reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to the injured or deceased person. Although the jury determined the church was not vicariously responsible for the minister’s negligence because he was acting outside of the scope of his job duties when the deadly wreck occurred, it did hold the organization liable for its negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of him. As a result, jurors awarded the child’s estate $1 million in damages and attributed 80 percent of the fault to the minister’s actions. Since the jury found that the child was 20 percent to blame for his wrongful death, the damages award was reduced to about $800,000. The child’s parents also received approximately $60,000 for their loss of consortium claims. Read More

Finding out what insurance coverage is available for you after a motor vehicle accident can be challenging and complex. In a recent unpublished case, a Kentucky court had ruled an insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify a man under a liability policy issued to a construction company. The construction company did highway mowing and landscaping, and its entire fleet of trucks was insured under a Tower liability policy. This policy excluded coverage for injuries that could be subject to worker's compensation or a similar law. An accident happened when an employee of the construction company fell from one of its pick-up trucks and died from his injuries. The truck was being operated by Brent Horn. Horn was not an employee of the company, but he had permission to operate the vehicle. Afterward, the decedent's estate filed a wrongful death action against Horn, who believed the liability policy for the trucks covered this type of action. He asked the insurance company to defend and indemnify him, which means paying any damages awarded by the jury. The insurer filed a complaint asking the court to decide whether it had to defend and indemnify Horn. The Court ruled that the insurance contract created coverage for Horn, however, because Horn was not an employee there was no coverage. Read More

It's no secret that tractor trailer drivers are often on tight deadlines to move freight fast. In some cases, the items they're carrying are perishable foods and if the cargo isn't on time, the trucking company risks spoilage. Trucking companies sometimes make unreasonable demands of drivers as well, forcing some of them to drive without the sleep they need to stay alert and drive safely. The news program 20/20, which is part of ABC News, aired a report recently on the dangers of expecting truck drivers to operate an 80,000 pound vehicle with very little sleep. This eight minute news story exposes the dangers of driving too fast and driving while exhausted. The ABC News crew spent time with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, spotting truck drivers violating the law by helicopter and advising patrol officers on the road to pull truckers over. In one case, a truck driver was going nearly 80 miles an hour and driving far too close behind a passenger car. If the car had stopped suddenly, the accident could have been catastrophic. Read More

In a recent Kentucky Supreme Court case, a medical malpractice suit was filed by a couple against a doctor and his practice. The doctor had performed a thyroidectomy on the wife. She started experiencing breathing difficulties the night of the surgery. She was placed on a ventilator for four days and stayed in the hospital a total of 12 days. Post-surgery, she had trouble breathing and talking. She consulted with an otolaryngologist. He diagnosed her with right vocal cord paralysis. The couple filed a medical negligence lawsuit in connection with the thyroidectomy. During discovery, the doctor asked whether other physicians had stated that he deviated from good medical practice. The plaintiffs' response stated that a surgeon had verified there was a departure from the appropriate standard of care to cut or otherwise alter the vocal cord. The response cited various treating physicians. The doctor filed a motion to set the case for trial. The judge set a schedule requiring the couple to disclose expert witnesses on a particular date. The order by the judge did not contain a specific deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses. It did require quick and efficient witness disclosure. Three years after the suit was filed the doctor moved for summary judgment. He argued they had failed to identify a surgeon who would testify he deviated from the standard of care. The plaintiffs filed a motion to reschedule the trial and to get an extension of time to list experts. They argued that summary judgment was not appropriate because evidence in the depositions raised genuine issues of material fact. The woman's medical records showed he was being treated for hypothyroidism, or an underactive thyroid before the surgery. She consulted with an internist because she was short of breath and had palpitations. An ultrasound showed she had an enlarged right lobe of thyroid with a small lesion. She was referred to the defendant doctor to see whether removal of the gland was appropriate. She consulted with him once before the surgery and signed a consent form in connection with it. The form explained she had a "thyroid storm." The internal medicine doctor said a thyroid storm is an emergency condition. The appropriate treatment is hospitalization and consultation with an endocrinologist. Surgery is not appropriate. Read More

Our firm often represents plaintiffs injured in car, truck or tractor-trailer accidents. The injuries from these accidents can be catastrophic or event fatal. The damage to vehicles is often very costly. Almost everyone has to deal with the results of a traffic wreck at some point. How you handle it can determine much about your financial future. If you accept the first settlement offered by an insurance company, you're giving up your rights to examine the case, and your rights to fight for payment for the health care you'll receive and compensation for lost wages and other issues that may result from the accident. In fact, taking some time to let an attorney examine your case gives you time, too, to see how extensive recovery will be from your accident and helps you better negotiate for compensation for the physical problems you may experience down the road that aren't evident initially. Read More

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court’s Order granting summary judgment in a car accident insurance dispute. In Embry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., two women were involved in a traffic wreck that resulted in injuries. Following the accident, one of the drivers filed a claim for medical and other damages from her automobile insurer. The insurer paid the claim and proceeded to file a lawsuit to recover the money it paid to its insured from the other driver in Jefferson Circuit Court. According to the insurer, the defendant’s negligent actions caused the car crash and all resulting damage. Although the defendant repeatedly denied responsibility for the collision, the insurer filed a motion for summary judgment with the circuit court. A motion for summary judgment asks a court to rule in favor of one party to a lawsuit without proceeding to trial because no genuine issues of material fact exists for a jury to decide. Normally, a court is required to consider all of the evidence offered prior to the filing of such a motion in favor of the non-moving party. In its motion, the insurer claimed the defendant caused the crash and asserted that the amount of damages paid to its insured was reasonable. The defendant opposed the insurer’s motion by stating her alleged liability was unclear and the financial compensation sought by the insurer was excessive based upon the severity of the wreck. In addition, the defendant argued that her answers to the insurer’s complaint demonstrated that the facts of the case were disputed. The circuit court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of the company. After the Jefferson Circuit Court denied the defendant’s motion, she filed an appeal with the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Read More

A case involving negligence per se, as opposed to ordinary negligence, occurs when a defendant violates a law or regulation and that violation causes an injury. In Kentucky, the plaintiff in a negligence per se case must be a member of a class of people that a regulation is designed to protect from injury. The violation of the law or regulation must have caused the plaintiff’s injury. The applicable regulation or law defines the relevant standard of care in a negligence per se case. In a 2012 case, the plaintiff invoked negligence per se in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to stay on his side of the highway or give her half of the highway, as a statute required, and therefore he was negligent per se. The case arose when the plaintiff's car and the defendant's truck crashed. The truck crossed the center line near a curve in the highway. The plaintiff swerved to avoid the truck and was injured when she hit a guardrail. The guardrail was next to a drop into a ravine. The plaintiff hurt her back, neck, and rotator cuff. Read More

The Western District of Kentucky has ordered portions of a pharmaceutical injury case to trial. In Vanden Bosch v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., two women filed a lawsuit against the drug manufacturer Bayer over health consequences they allegedly sustained after the women used the Mirena contraceptive product. According to the complaint, a Florida woman suffered a chronic health condition following the use of the device after it was implanted into her body in Kentucky. Additionally, a Kentucky woman purportedly became pregnant despite her use of the contraceptive product. Her child allegedly suffered an abnormal chromosome disorder as a result of her exposure to Mirena. In response to the lawsuit, Bayer filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion asking the federal court to dismiss the case. When such a motion is filed, the defendant in a civil lawsuit is essentially stating that, even if everything a plaintiff alleged in his or her lawsuit were true, the plaintiff did not assert sufficient information to show that he or she is entitled to a legal remedy. After determining that Kentucky law applied to the case, the federal court addressed Bayer’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Since Kentucky has a one-year statute of limitations for products liability claims, and the Florida woman filed her lawsuit more than one year after her purported injury, the Western District of Kentucky dismissed the woman’s negligence and other products liability causes of action against the drug company. The federal court also dismissed many of the Kentucky woman’s claims against Bayer because pregnancy “is not a legally cognizable injury” in the state. Next, the Western District of Kentucky dismissed the plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claims because there was no “privity of contract” between the parties. Bayer argued that the plaintiffs’ breach of express warranty and Kentucky Consumer Protection Act claims should be dismissed as well, since the women did not purchase Mirena directly from the drug company, but the court disagreed. The federal court stated that the plaintiffs’ express breach of warranty claims required further evidence and should be fleshed out at trial. Also, Kentucky case law provides an exception to the Consumer Protection Act’s privity requirement when a manufacturer makes “valid express warranties for the benefit of consumers.” According to the federal court, the exception applied to the plaintiffs’ case. Read More

The Supreme Court of Kentucky has issued an opinion related to the potential liability of an employer for the negligent acts of a worker. In MV Transportation, Inc. v. Allgeier, a wheelchair-bound bus passenger was seriously hurt on a cold day when she attempted to disembark from a Louisville para-transit bus after the bus driver negligently operated a wheelchair lift. When the woman attempted to roll onto the lift, her wheelchair tipped over, and she became suspended mid-air in her chair by a safety harness. After the lift lowered, the bus driver apparently unhooked the safety strap, and the woman fell to the ground. As a result, both of the woman’s legs were broken. Instead of calling an ambulance, the bus driver allegedly contacted the bus service dispatcher per the organization’s protocol. The dispatcher in turn apparently notified two of the bus driver’s supervisors about the incident but also failed to contact emergency crews. Despite the freezing temperatures outside, both supervisors purportedly went to the scene of the injury accident before notifying emergency services. About 22 minutes after the incident occurred, an ambulance was summoned by the bus company. Since the bus company employees allegedly downplayed the extent of the woman’s injuries, emergency vehicles did not treat the situation as time-sensitive and responded to the accident scene nearly 20 minutes later. Although the two supervisors apparently took photos of the injured woman as she lay on the ground, law enforcement officers were not summoned to the accident scene. Following the incident, the woman received medical care in a hospital and a rehabilitation facility for a period of 225 days. She also allegedly relied on others for all of her needs following the accident. About one year after the bus incident, the wheelchair-bound woman filed a lawsuit against the bus company seeking damages for the bus driver’s negligence using the doctrine of respondeat superior. In Kentucky and elsewhere, this doctrine allows an employer to be held vicariously responsible for the negligent acts of a worker if the acts were performed during the course of the worker’s employment. The woman also sought compensation from the bus company for its negligent hiring, training, retaining, and supervision of the bus driver. Finally, the woman asked the court to award her punitive damages to punish the bus company for its allegedly egregious behavior. Read More