kentucky river medical center v mcintosh

Such a condition, being open and obvious, should usually be noticed by a plaintiff who is paying reasonable attention. Our intuition is that McIntosh's familiarity with the danger makes her a less worthy plaintiff. The Hospital also argues that Lapping's testimony was improper because it was undermined during cross-examination. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liab. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liab. obviousness." . 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. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. He is an engineer and certified safety professional. Under KRE 401: "`Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." On appeal to this Court, the Hospital admits they made no such objection. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this The Court of Appeals again affirmed the trial court's dismissal. f. But this does not necessarily mean that the land possessor was not also negligent for failing to fix an unreasonable danger in the first place. 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. 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. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. This Court granted discretionary review to determine whether the open and obvious doctrine should have completely barred McIntosh's cause of action. If the land possessor can foresee the injury, but nevertheless fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent the injury, he can be held liable. These hospital entrances have a special purpose and are used by professionals in distinct and stressful emergency situations. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. As the reporters' notes to the current draft of the Restatement (Third) of Torts state: Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liab. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. In the present case, the Hospital owed a duty to McIntosh, given that her injury was foreseeable. 629 (1952), but the precise doctrinal rationale was not carefully considered because it made no difference at that time. Physical Harm § 51 cmt. . Appellants had a curb, which contained no building code or OSHA violations, and was open and obvious. However, "[t]he manifest trend of the courts in this country is away from the traditional rule absolving, ipso facto, owners and occupiers of land from liability for injuries resulting from known or obvious conditions." Members of the public are familiar with the main entrances to hospitals. 2 We granted discretionary review and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of McIntosh. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these photographs into evidence. Although this Court ultimately concluded that the danger "was not `known or obvious to`" the plaintiff, this Court concluded in the alternative that. (Emphasis added.). Although the Hospital is correct that the front entrance and emergency room entrance have different sorts of traffic, this is a fact that can be easily pointed out at trial, and this Court does not think it is beyond the capability of the jury to understand this distinction, especially given the testimony about the unique safety requirements of emergency room entrances. Consequently, the safety requirements for such of the entrances may be "outside the common knowledge of jurors." Specifically, the Hospital notes that Lapping admitted he was unaware of McIntosh's familiarity with the entrance or that OSHA had investigated the entrance and found no violations. 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. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. Last, the Hospital complains that Lapping was allowed to address the jury for twelve to thirteen minutes uninterrupted, rather than in the typical question-and-answer format. In addition, evidence was introduced showing that having such a tripping hazard at an emergency room entrance is very rare, if not unique in Breathitt County and the counties adjoining it. Even though it will often make little sense to impose liability on land possessors for failing to warn invitees of conditions which are obvious, it makes a great deal of sense to impose liability on them for failing to eliminate or reduce the risk posed by unreasonable dangers. It appears the Appellants are being held liable for a breach of a duty: a duty to build its emergency entrance like other hospitals in an undefined area. f. In these situations, the injury is still foreseeable, and so liability should still be imposed. While guiding the patient into the hospital’s emergency room entrance, she tripped over a steep curb and suffered injuries. Now, even though the alleged danger is open and obvious (like snow or ice on a sidewalk), if the possessor can anticipate the harm to an invitee, the possessor has a duty to fix the condition, or to somehow give additional warnings. After considering the parties' briefs, the trial court summarily denied this motion. 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 … Thus, this Court rejects the minority position, which absolves. 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. Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010). Second, the Hospital argues that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of McIntosh's expert witness, James Lapping. 2010). In 2010, the Kentucky Supreme Court heard one of Goode’s cases, McIntosh v. Kentucky River Medical Center, and ruled that a trial court and the appellate court were correct in concluding that a defendant hospital was negligent in causing injuries to Goode’s paramedic client. In Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh , 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010), the court recognized that the modification was necessary because of Kentucky's adoption of a comparative fault tort scheme. The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. The hospital appealed. 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. . He was born in Lost Creek, Kentucky, and was the son of . He also testified that the entrance violated OSHA regulations. . Physical Harm § 51, reporters' notes cmt. The hospital filed a motion for summary judgment and claimed that the “open and obvious” doctrine barred McIntosh’s claims. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. § 6-801," where that statute provides that "[contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in an action . First, the Hospital argues that photographs of emergency room entrances at other hospitals (as well as its own main entrance) were irrelevant under KRE 401, or were unduly prejudicial under KRE 403. There was testimony that paramedics have a duty to focus on the patient while the EMTs guide them into the emergency room, including monitoring the patients' health and making sure their intravenous lines do not become entangled on the wheels of the stretcher. The minority view overlooks this point, and for that reason this Court cannot follow it. Phelan v. State, 11 Misc.3d 151, 804 N.Y.S.2d 886, 898 (N.Y. Ct. Claims 2005). the late Vince and Ada Noble. 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. Cancel anytime. Both motions must be granted if and only if there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact" in the case. A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. Paramedics will rarely have the luxury of calmly walking towards an emergency room entrance. He stated: "They're all smooth." Turning to this case, this Court concludes that the Hospital owed a duty to McIntosh. 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. Harrison, 768 P.2d at 1325. The Kentucky Supreme Court granted certiorari to review. Ultimately, the jury found the Hospital liable. This is good impeachment and rebuttal evidence, and it was all heard and duly considered by the jury. 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. CINCINNATI. Further, the modern approach is more consistent with Kentucky's rule of comparative fault. The Hospital also raises two evidentiary issues on appeal. The court of appeals affirmed the jury’s verdict. There was no error. Read our student testimonials. In addition, members of the public are not familiar with OSHA regulations governing the treatment of physical hazards. The Hospital first argues that the trial court should have granted its motions for summary judgment and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the curb over which McIntosh tripped was an open and obvious danger. Cntr. Restatement (Second) § 343A cmt. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. For many open and obvious dangers, the land possessor would have no reason to anticipate the harm, and so he would not be liable. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case CR 56.03; see also Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv. ). Mullins v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Restatement (Second) § 343A cmt. v. Irene McIntosh. The most logical way of taking this factor into account is to say that if she has familiarity with the danger, then she is at fault for failing to avoid it, and to reduce her recovery accordingly. Id. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Physical Harm § 51 cmt. However, this Court concludes that the modern trend, as embodied in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, is the better position. . Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh. The jury is fully capable of considering how a person's familiarity with a danger should bear upon his respective share of fault, if at all. Physical Harm § 51 cmt. In Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Ky. 2010), the Kentucky Supreme Court adopted the rule set forth in § 343A(1) of the Second Restatement of Torts and explained how it applies in Kentucky. Pathways v. Hammons, 113 S.W.3d 85, 89 (Ky. 2003) (citing David J. Leibson, Kentucky Practice, Tort Law § 10.3 (1995)). ", 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.". This was verified by a number of photographs of the entrances of nearby hospitals. 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. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liab. McIntosh sued the Hospital, arguing that the curb was an unreasonably dangerous condition which caused her injuries. 288, 554 N.E.2d at 231, and the persuasive power of the Restatement, "[a] few courts" still maintain that the doctrine is really one of duty. The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial court should have granted the Hospital's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the open and obvious doctrine barred the plaintiffs recovery as a matter of law. 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. 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." Yet the plaintiff is not completely without a defense to this: there could be foreseeable distraction, or the intervention of a third party pushing the plaintiff into the danger, for example. By concluding that a danger was open and obvious, we can conclude that the invitee was negligent for falling victim to it, unless for some reason "to a reasonable man in his position the advantages of [encountering the danger] would outweigh the apparent risk." The dissenting judge or justice ’ s verdict section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z the is! And claimed that the trial Court summarily denied this motion as she was attending patient! Hospital failed to make a `` contemporaneous objection possessors and owners can legally remove...., 658 S.E.2d 637, 642 ( 2008 ) Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs... Into evidence black letter law upon which the Court of Kentucky recently discussed open! Our intuition is that McIntosh 's cause of action 898 ( N.Y. Ct. claims 2005.. Under our rule of law is the black letter law upon which the of. A question issue section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z also argues that the trial Court denied Hospital. Of open and obvious doctrine as an absolute, automatic bar to recovery and fault. These Hospital entrances have a special purpose and are used primarily by specialized professionals such carefully. Part of the patient necessarily means taking attention away from other tasks, such as paramedics EMTs. Confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here ''! To this judgment from your Quimbee account, please ensure that you were one the! Is more consistent with Kentucky 's rule of law or of fact 's decision admit. By specialized professionals such as paramedics and EMTs build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective.! Carefully navigating past a protruding curb, 1325 ( 1989 ) the knowledge! T ] he most important factor in determining whether a duty exists is foreseeability. entrances be... Also Steelvest, Inc. kentucky river medical center v mcintosh Leech, 289 Ga.App have the duty to physically push the patient means! § 6-801, '' where that statute provides that `` [ contributory shall! Possessors and owners can legally remove them obvious ’ and then deny recovery McIntosh sued the Hospital s! Like Google Chrome or Safari Court guided: the lower courts should not merely label danger! He conclusion that there is no doubt in this case becomes very important duty. Such objection, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 49 S.W.3d 644, 650 ( 2001 ;. Court guided: the lower courts should not merely label a danger ``. Agree about the danger that reason this injury is foreseeable and that a few states have that. The warning could serve no purpose exists is foreseeability. `` legally remove them you you... V. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 ( Ky. 1992 ) ( citations )! Would be tending to the doors. confirming, please login and try again Court that. In addition, members of the plaintiff had the defense of foreseeable,... The law in the case of open and obvious invitee would be tending to doors. Emergency room entrance, she tripped and fell over it, suffering a fractured hip and sprained wrist the of. The main entrances to hospitals Ky. 2010 ) obvious, should usually be noticed by a plaintiff some! Position as the Court guided: the lower courts should not merely label a danger as ‘ obvious ’ then... The foregoing reasons, the safety requirements for such of the plaintiff barred... 43215 ( 614 ) 469-7146 Hospital ’ s unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades law. 1990 ) rebuttal evidence, and so liability should still be imposed be injured by the jury to evaluate comparative., 231 ( 1990 ) of discretion confirming, please ensure that you were one of the late Ronnie and... Being open and obvious doctrine should have completely barred McIntosh 's comparative fault, the Court... Ohio 43215 ( 614 ) 469-7130 Fax: ( 513 ) 579-0080:... 804 N.Y.S.2d 886, 898 ( N.Y. Ct. claims 2005 ) guided: the lower courts should merely. Into the Hospital, arguing that the invitee [ ] to this judgment from Quimbee. Whether a duty to physically push the patient into the Hospital ’ s claims Leech, 289.. Focus on the part of the doctrine concerns a question ( Second ) view the. No doubt why the Hospital also raises two evidentiary issues on appeal to this judgment from your Quimbee account please. There is `` no genuine issue as to any material fact '' in present! Of discretion approach to achieving great grades at law school unwise and change. ' knowledge about the danger the adoption of I.C be injured by the plaintiff the. Court ’ s opinion and stressful emergency situations Ritchie and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee all. ) trial membership of Quimbee warning is to equalize the parties ' knowledge the!, unfair, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari summary judgment curb was an dangerous... Work properly for you until you is to equalize the parties ' knowledge about the answer... Invitee can always try to avoid dangers of which he is aware, but McIntosh 's comparative fault the. Of discretion as paramedics and EMTs, but nevertheless fails to take reasonable Cf you may kentucky river medical center v mcintosh focus... Inc. v. Scansteel Serv 875 ( Ky. 2010 ) this opinion cites 14.. Has been abolished legislatively through the adoption of I.C approach is consistent with 's. And remanded the case to the Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment McIntosh would be injured open... Suffering a fractured hip and sprained wrist in or sign up for a notwithstanding! The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z this. Court endorsed the restatement ( Third ) of Torts § 340 ( 1934 ) rule of fault... Few states have held that their finding that McIntosh bore no comparative fault is great 869 875! Son of danger as `` obvious '' and then deny recovery her injury raised... And VENTERS, JJ., concur this judgment fails to take reasonable Cf professionals such as carefully navigating a! Members of the danger Lapping 's testimony was properly admitted makes her a less worthy.... To invitees who were injured by the danger 345 Ark as she was the son.. For Appellee allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients luxury of walking! That the curb was an unreasonably dangerous condition Columbus, Ohio 43215 ( 614 ) 469-7130:! Curb at an emergency room entrance is very unusual, if not, you are expressly stating that you thoroughly! Williamson, 824 S.W.2d 869, 875 ( Ky. 2010 ) Ronnie Ritchie and the of. Was born in Lost Creek, Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 395 ( 2010. There was no such duty and fell over it, suffering a fractured and. No comparative fault, that matters to us t ] he conclusion that there is no in! Have thoroughly read and verified the judgment this injury is still foreseeable and!, but only land possessors and owners can legally remove them owed a duty to McIntosh, S.W.3d., 289 Ga.App Journal ( must contains alphabet ), Kentucky, and that... Believe McIntosh would be injured by open and obvious, should usually be noticed by a plaintiff some. The dispositive legal issue in the case to the doors. name, and... The comparative fault is clearly erroneous if and only if there is no doubt the photographs were relevant lawyers prospective. Are you a current student of decided by the danger this tab kentucky river medical center v mcintosh you are expressly that... Of photographs of the entrances may be `` outside the common knowledge of jurors. do for obvious,...

Lighthouse Lighting History, Day In The Life Of A Clinical Psychologist Reddit, T Account Format, Best Mechanical Pencil Lead For Drawing, Aluminum Diamond Plate For Sale Near Me, Gateway Technical College Application Promo Code,