personal injury

A negligence case has four components:  duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Sometimes, a particular situation - such as a slip and fall injury, an act of medical malpractice, or a defective product - turns a simple negligence case into a more complex inquiry.Sometimes, however, the opposite is true. A recent case from the Kentucky Court of Appeals illustrates this point. Facts of the Case In Campbell v. Pro Video Audio Productions, Inc., the plaintiff was working as a professional stagehand at a concert in Louisville in 2012 when his foot became entangled in a tarp placed on the stage. He fell approximately seven feet, hurting his arm, leg, face, and hand. He sued the defendant, who was in the business of providing stage construction and sound system services, alleging that it had created an unreasonably dangerous condition by failing to place handrails around the stage. Read More

By Kyle Roby, Attorney and Partner English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP The reported cases decided by the appellate courts sometimes come in batches of cases involving similar issues. Since a criminal case questioning the applicability of the death penalty, for example, involves an entirely different set of issues, research, and analysis than does a tort case arguing about liability in a medical malpractice lawsuit, there is judicial economy when the courts decide similar cases during the same time period. Lately, it seems the courts have been faced with a number of cases involving whether or not a given situation is covered under a particular insurance policy. In the recent case of Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Holland, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville was called upon to decide whether a commercial general liability insurance policy provided coverage in an accident in which a child was injured by the gate of a trailer that an insured used to transport lawn care equipment. Read More

When a husband or wife dies or is severely injured as a result of someone’s negligence, the surviving spouse can typically seek damages for past medical expenses, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, impairment of earning capacity and what’s called “loss of consortium.” Essentially, loss of consortium is the loss of the loved one’s love, care, services, assistance, and companionship. Loss of consortium seeks to compensate the surviving spouse for the harm endured to the marital relationship. Damages for loss of consortium can be awarded not only in wrongful death cases but also in cases in which a spouse has been severely injured and is unable to provide the love, care, services, assistance, and companionship that the couple enjoyed when both persons were healthy. Damages for loss of consortium are only available to married couples. KRS 411.145 states that “either a wife or husband may recover damages against a third person for loss of consortium, resulting from a negligent or wrongful act of such third person.” Read More

By Kyle Roby Attorney, English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP Drones can get bird's eye view of a roadway like nothing else can. Telling a story about an event is one thing. But it's so much more powerful when you can show what happened. That's the job of accident reconstructionists, and their work is extremely important in helping juries and judges understand how, exactly, a crash occurred. Accident re-constructionists now have a new tool available that has been a game-changer for showing what happened: drones. If you aren't familiar with drones, these are remote-powered cameras that fly. They're lightweight and powerful, and can take both video and still photos, and they're becoming very popular as they've come down in price. The drones can get a view of a roadway like nothing else can. Drones can show exactly how an intersection comes together from many angles, including from directly above and from all sides. With video footage and still photos from a drone, accident re-constructionists can create an animation of how vehicles crashed together on a roadway. The footage a drone shoots can also be rendered into CAD drawings that contain complete information on measurements, scale, size of vehicles and other scientific information that helps court officials properly review a case. Read More

When someone is injured in a car accident, there are several different types of damages that can be included in a settlement or judgment, assuming that a case of negligence can be made against the negligent driver. Depending upon the circumstances, possible damages include past and future medical expenses, lost wages, loss of future earning capacity and property damages. Non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, are more difficult to calculate than economic damages, such as medical bills and lost wages. Often, these are the most heavily contested elements of a car wreck case, once liability has been established. Sometimes, those types of damages are even the subject of an appeal. Read More

The Kentucky Motor Vehicles Reparations Act allows a policyholder to recover damages for an auto insurer’s denial of basic reparation benefits following a Kentucky car crash. In Risner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. , a man sued his insurance company for payment of benefits after he was apparently injured in a Lexington, Kentucky motor vehicle collision. Following the traffic accident, the man was treated by a local chiropractor. The injured man then sought reimbursement for his associated medical expenses from his auto insurer. About six months later, the insurance company notified the policyholder that it was denying coverage for certain medical bills he incurred as a result of the crash. In Kentucky, basic reparation benefits are typically used to pay the medical bills and certain other expenses of an individual who was hurt in a car accident, regardless of fault. After the man’s auto insurer discontinued his no-fault benefits, the injured man filed a lawsuit against the company in Rowan County Circuit Court. According to the man’s complaint, the motor vehicle insurer violated the Kentucky Motor Vehicles Reparations Act and the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. In addition, the hurt man accused his insurance company of negligence, breach of contract, fraud, and numerous other claims. As a result, the policyholder asked the court to award him both compensatory and punitive damages. In general, punitive damages are only appropriate when a court seeks to punish a party and deter similar conduct in the future. Read More

A 2011 accident involving a tree-trimming crew resulted in the death of one worker and injuries to another. The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently ruled on a lawsuit concerning the accident after it was appealed from Warren County Circuit Court in Bowling Green, Kentucky. You can read the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruling in the case here: http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2013-CA-000078.pdf The accident involved three men: James Coleman, Davison Crocker, and Dale Cherry, all of whom were employed by A&G Tree Service, Inc., which is located in Leitchfield, Kentucky. In August 2011, they were sent to a job site in Tennessee, and traveled together to the job site in a company vehicle. On the way back, an accident occurred that took the life of Cherry and injured Crocker. The employment handbook for A&G indicates that their employees are considered to be at work once they arrive at the site where their work is to occur. The workers may use company vehicles for their convenience and carpooling is permitted. After the accident, Crocker received workers' compensation benefits, and Cherry's estate received workers' compensation death benefits. Crocker sued Coleman and his personal insurance carrier, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, arguing that Coleman's negligent driving had caused the accident. Progressive argued that workers' compensation should be the sole source of benefits for Coleman and Cherry's estate, but Crocker argued that the men were not on the clock, so tort relief was also possible. The Warren County Circuit Court did not agree. Kentucky law says that the either an employee may recover workers' compensation benefits, if in fact their injury occurred while the employee was on the job, or the worker may recover tort damages if the employee was not on the clock at the time of the injury or damages, but the person may not recover both. Read More

State laws vary when it comes to uninsured motorists coverage. Our personal injury attorneys are licensed to practice in both Kentucky and Tennessee and see these type of cases often.In a case decided by the Kentucky Court of Appeals recently, the issue of which state laws applied in an uninsured motorist case was handled by the court. The case is Grange Property and Casualty Company vs. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company. The dispute arose after two motorists were in an accident in Pike County, which is in Eastern Kentucky. Grange Ferlin Pruitt, the operator of one of the vehicles, was driving a vehicle owned by his employer, Drill Steel Services. The other driver,  Allison Comer, had no insurance. Drill Steel Services insured Pruitt's vehicle with Grange Property and Casualty Company, which had policy limits for Uninsured Motorists of $1 million. Pruitt also had a personal insurance policy from Tennessee Farmers, which provided coverage of up to $100,000 for accidents involving uninsured motorists. Allison Comer died as a result of the accident. Pruitt was injured. Comer had crossed the center line and struck Pruitt's vehicle and was responsible for the injuries he suffered, but because Comer was not insured, the only payout he could receive was from his own insurance company's uninsured or underinsured motorists provisions. He settled with Grange, and Grange sought to recover the $100,000 policy limit from Tennessee Mutual, arguing that the company was responsible for the payment under Kentucky's pro-rata law. Tennessee Mutual argued that Tennessee law applied, and Pike County Circuit Court agreed with Tennessee Mutual. Grange appealed the case to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's decision. The court agreed that Grange had the greater duty to cover Pruitt, and argued that Grange's policy should pay out first, and Tennessee Mutual's policy would only kick in if damages exceeded $1 million. Drill Steel Services is a Kentucky-based corporation. Read More

In Boarman v. Grange Indemnity Ins. Co., a man was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision when another motorist ran a red light and collided with his vehicle. Unfortunately for the injured man, both the driver and the vehicle that struck him were not insured at the time of the accident. Despite this, the man obtained a judgment of more than $90,000 against the other driver for his accident injuries. Since the at-fault motorist was uninsured, the man never collected the damages that were awarded to him. About one month before the man was hurt, his wife obtained a new automobile insurance policy naming both members of the couple as insured drivers. Following the crash, he filed a claim for uninsured motorist coverage from their auto insurer. The insurance company denied the man’s claim because his wife rejected uninsured motorist coverage in writing when she obtained the policy. The man then filed a lawsuit in Daviess County Circuit Court against his insurance company to recover the uninsured motorist benefits he believed he was statutorily entitled to. The man testified at trial that his wife was asked to obtain the same accident coverage the couple held with their previous motor vehicle insurer, which included uninsured motorist coverage. In addition, the injured man claimed that he was a co-applicant who did not reject his statutory right to uninsured motorist coverage, as evidenced by the fact that he did not sign the insurance policy application. Still, he received a copy of the policy and paid insurance premiums that did not include uninsured motorist benefits. 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