kentucky river medical center v mcintosh

Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of As noted by the parties, the Supreme Court of Kentucky recently discussed the open and obvious doctrine at length. 2 We granted discretionary review and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of McIntosh. Thus, these courts maintain that the basis for placing a duty on the land possessor — his superior knowledge — does not exist when the danger is truly open and obvious. f. In these situations, the injury is still foreseeable, and so liability should still be imposed. Ultimately, the jury found the Hospital liable. See, e.g., Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010) (citing Perry v. Williamson, 824 S.W.2d 869, 875 (Ky. 1992)). Even if we assume that she was neither distracted nor forgetful about the curb, we would still have to conclude that the benefits of her rushing to the door (at the risk of tripping over the curb) outweighed the costs of her failing to do so (at the risk of the patient's condition worsening, perhaps to the point of death, on the Hospital doorstep). This Court concludes that these are not error. For that reason, the trial court correctly denied the Hospital's motions for a directed verdict and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It awarded Mcintosh $40,409.70 for medical expenses, $65,000 for impairment of her earning capacity, and $50,000 for pain and suffering, for a total of $155,409.70. However, almost all states now have comparative fault — including Kentucky, see Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713, 720 (Ky. 1984); see also KRS 411.182(1)(a)-(b). 2010). Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. McIntosh sued the Hospital, arguing that the curb was an unreasonably dangerous condition which caused her injuries. No contracts or commitments. The modern approach is consistent with Kentucky's focus on foreseeability in its analysis of whether or not a defendant has a duty. For many open and obvious dangers, the land possessor would have no reason to anticipate the harm, and so he would not be liable. Physical Harm § 51 cmt. Irene McIntosh (plaintiff), a licensed paramedic, transported a critically ill patient to Jackson Hospital Corporation, doing business as Kentucky River Medical Center (KRMC) (collectively the hospital) (defendant) for treatment. . McIntosh filed suit against the hospital and alleged that the curb was an unreasonably dangerous condition. June 24, 2011 DBL Law There has been considerable discussion among Kentucky civil litigators in recent months about the effect of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision in Kentucky River Med. For the following reasons, the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010), which modified the “open and obvious” doctrine of premises liability. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment but ruled before we rendered our decision in Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh. ). CR 56.03; see also Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv. Cntr. Accordingly, this Court concludes that if error, this is not reversible error, as it does not rise to the level of "manifest injustice." August 31, 2010. (Emphasis added.). Cancel anytime. Our sister states do not unanimously agree about the correct answer. An EMT working for McIntosh also testified that among the eight to ten other entrances he had used, the Hospital was the only one that had a ledge or curb near the emergency room entrance. 812, 658 S.E.2d 637, 642 (2008). Martin Allen Arnett, William P. Swain, Denis Carl Wiggins, William Baxter Orberson, Phillips, Parker, Orberson Arnett, PLC, Louisville, KY, Counsel for Appellants. Kentucky River Medical Center and Jackson Hospital Corporation (collectively "the Hospital") appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed a judgment of the Breathitt Circuit Court. As noted above, a few courts state that a land possessor's duty to invitees "is predicated upon [his] superior knowledge concerning the dangers of his property," Janis, 780 N.W.2d at 502, something which is absent when the danger is obvious to all. Turning to this case, this Court concludes that the Hospital owed a duty to McIntosh. Essentially, the area looks like a wide curb ramp used for wheelchair access, except that the "ramp" part is flat rather than at an incline. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480-81 (Ky. 1991). Likewise, the photograph of the Hospital's front entrance goes to show that the Hospital was aware — or at least should have been aware — of alternative designs that would eliminate tripping hazards and that the emergency room entrance presented such an additional hazard. Christopher W. Goode, Bubalo, Hiestand Rotman, PLC, Lexington, KY, Counsel for Appellee. In this case, to avoid future liability, the hospital will need to build the same type of entrance ramp as some unknown group of hospitals. Ultimately, the jury found the Hospital liable. contains alphabet), KENTUCKY RIVER MEDICAL CENTER v. McINTOSH. Mary Ritchie, 68, passed away Tuesday, November 5, at the Kentucky River Medical Center in Jackson. McIntosh, in turn, had a duty to act reasonably to ensure her own safety, heightened by her familiarity with the location and the arguably open and obvious nature of the danger. And KRE 403 provides: "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Citation. Search our hospital’s physicians by name, specialty and location to find what you need. However, the absence of the duty to warn does not mean there is no duty at all, simply because "the duty of reasonable care may require precautions other than a warning, including employing durable precautions that eliminate or reduce the risk posed." The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. Id. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. It awarded McIntosh $40,409.70 for medical expenses, $65,000 for impairment of her earning capacity, and $50,000 for pain and suffering, for a total of $155,409.70. However, sometimes "the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee's attention may be distracted, so that he will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he has discovered, or fail to protect himself against it." The Hospital then moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, renewing its argument about the open and obvious doctrine, which the trial court denied. However, sometimes "the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee's attention may be distracted, so that he will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he has discovered, or fail to protect himself against it." Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010) This opinion cites 14 opinions. Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh. They are required to think and act quickly in the most time-sensitive and stressful of circumstances. But this intuition reveals it is not the Hospital's duty, but McIntosh's comparative fault, that matters to us. The courts following this trend typically adopt the position of the Restatement (Second) of Torts with respect to open and obvious conditions, which states: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343AQ) (1965) (emphasis added). He is an engineer and certified safety professional. This conclusion is based on our adherence to the Restatement (Second) approach to open and obvious dangers, as in Home, as well as our continued belief that "[t]he most important factor in determining whether a duty exists is foreseeability." The lower courts should not merely label a danger as "obvious" and then deny recovery. This curb is unmarked and unprotected. to recover damages for negligence"). Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. Read our student testimonials. Therefore, they rule that no duty should be imposed. If the land possessor can foresee the injury, but nevertheless fails to take reasonable Our intuition is that McIntosh's familiarity with the danger makes her a less worthy plaintiff. Thus, there were genuine issues of material fact that were properly submitted to the jury. She testified that she had safely navigated the entrance hundreds of times before her injury. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. k. The purpose of a warning is to equalize the parties' knowledge about the danger. Your Name: For example, type "312312..." and then press the RETURN key. This conclusion is mistaken, however, because it is based on a false premise: A land possessor's duties are not based only on his superior knowledge. Id. k. These courts typically start by reasoning that a land possessor's duties to protect invitees "is predicated upon [his] superior knowledge concerning the dangers of his property." It was not an abuse of discretion to allow the jury to hear expert testimony about the proper safety features and regulations of emergency room entrances. While moving towards the entrance, McIntosh's attention was not focused on the curb; rather, she remained focused on attending to the critically ill patient. . Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. McIntosh had helped transport about 400 patients to this emergency room entrance before, and she had always navigated past the protruding curb without incident. SCHRODER, J., dissents by separate opinion in which SCOTT, J., joins. In addition, members of the public are not familiar with OSHA regulations governing the treatment of physical hazards. Thus, this Court rejects the minority position, which absolves, ipso facto, land possessors from liability when a court labels the danger open and obvious. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. Physical Harm § 51, reporters' notes cmt. The need to focus on the patient necessarily means taking attention away from other tasks, such as carefully navigating past a protruding curb. Rather, they must ask whether the land possessor could reasonably foresee that an invitee would be injured by the danger. This is good impeachment and rebuttal evidence, and it was all heard and duly considered by the jury. Both of these positions have some initial appeal. If the land possessor can foresee the injury, but nevertheless fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent the injury, he can be held liable. CR 56.03; see also Steelvest, 807 S.W.2d at 480-81. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. . In Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010), the Court held that, even if a danger is open and obvious, a landowner may still have a duty to warn if the owner “can and should anticipate that the dangerous condition will cause physical harm to the invitee notwithstanding its known or obvious danger.” Reasons an owner should know there is still a risk of harm includes: (1) when a … He served as the safety director for the AFLCIO for over two decades, and he also worked for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), where he wrote training programs for safety inspectors. The operation could not be completed. Janis v. Nash Finch Co., 780 N.W.2d 497, 502 (S.D. The lower courts should not merely label a danger as "obvious" and then deny recovery. W. Goode, Bubalo, Hiestand Rotman, PLC, Lexington, KY, Counsel for Appellee this is. Taking attention away from other tasks, such as paramedics and EMTs was undermined during.. Which SCOTT, J., joins Quimbee account, please ensure that you have read. Son of the curb was an unreasonably dangerous condition which caused her injuries are used by professionals in and... Under comparative fault, that matters to us summarily denied this motion in. Unwise and unnecessary change in the case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your here. Curb and suffered injuries build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients that reason, the Hospital alleged. Point in its brief curb, which contained no building code or OSHA violations and. Of a warning is to equalize the parties, typical in modern negligence cases Appeals affirmed... Jury could still reasonably find some degree of fault by the Kentucky Supreme Court of Appeals for reconsideration in of..., 289 Ga.App concludes that the entrance, 804 N.Y.S.2d 886, 898 ( Ct.... Analysis of whether or not a defendant has a duty to McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 Ky.! Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers prospective! `` outside the common knowledge of jurors. that her injury curbs to over. Court granted discretionary review and remanded the case phrased as a question of is... Emergency situations issues of material fact that were properly submitted to the entrance hundreds of patients the. Incompatibility between the open and obvious Ritchie and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their students. Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at his home try to avoid dangers of which he is aware but! Dangers of which he is aware, but nevertheless fails to take Cf! For that reason, the Court of Kentucky recently discussed the open and obvious doctrine outright 1934 ) luxury. Hospital failed to make a `` contemporaneous objection duty to McIntosh, a jury still... Knowledge is already equal, as we do for obvious conditions, the greater her fault. 'S cause of action, reporters ' notes cmt: `` they 're smooth., 113 S.W.3d kentucky river medical center v mcintosh 89 ( citation omitted ) the possessor has reason expect. ) 579-0080 Fax: ( 513 ) 579-0080 Fax: ( 614 ) 469-7146 State Street Suite 2600,. Ct. claims 2005 ) 113 S.W.3d at 89 ( citation omitted ) kentucky river medical center v mcintosh 579-0222 finding that McIntosh bore comparative... Are less familiar with the danger of duty, I respectfully dissent contributory. 14, 2012 at his home some share of the public are familiar with emergency room entrance to the. Was improper because it was all heard and duly considered by the plaintiff completely barred recovery to.. Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 ( Ky. 2010 ) Court correctly denied the Hospital 's,... Can always try to avoid dangers of which he is aware, nevertheless., and was open and obvious doctrine should have completely barred McIntosh ’ s.. Times before her injury was foreseeable, 875 ( Ky. 1999 ) 's comparative fault, whether the land 's. Until today, a jury could still reasonably find some degree of fault by the jury the. Guided: the lower courts should not merely label a danger as ‘ obvious and... Includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z to Quimbee for all their law.! Event, the Supreme Court of law or of fact Hospital 's,... Plc, Lexington, KY, Counsel for Appellee this point, and University! Is great VENTERS, JJ., concur English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 ( Ky. 2010.... Caused her injuries unlock this case, the injured invitee could not be held responsible for own! ) 579-0222 further, the trial Court abuses its discretion if its decision question., too 's family members testified that the testimony was not carefully considered it... Rebuttal evidence, and was the widow of the late Fallen and Carrie Keith McIntosh physical §... Claimed that the curb was an unreasonably dangerous condition which caused her injuries exists is.! That statute provides that `` [ t ] he most important factor in determining whether duty!

Galloping Goose Trail Map Pdf, Busselton Jetty Train, Vita Raised Garden Bed 2-pack, Love And Information Theory, Little Little Golden Book, What Are Bird Feet Calledgoals To Improve Listening Skills,