Daugherty v. Runner
1978 Ky. App. LEXIS 676, 581 S.W.2d 12 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney is liable for the want of such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in similar professional employment. Whether an attorney's conduct meets this standard of care is generally a question of fact for the jury to determine.
Facts:
- On February 22, 1972, Lula Daugherty Roach was injured in an automobile accident and was subsequently admitted to St. Joseph Hospital for treatment.
- Mrs. Roach died in the hospital on March 17, 1972; the official cause of death was listed as bronchial pneumonia resulting from peritonitis and bacterial endocarditis.
- On the day of her death, Mrs. Roach's husband entered into a contract with attorney E. Michael Runner to "institute a claim for damages against any and all responsible parties as a result of injuries received upon the 22nd day of February, 1972."
- Runner filed a wrongful death action related to the auto accident but testified he never suspected a potential medical malpractice claim and was not competent to handle one.
- Members of Mrs. Roach's family discussed a potential medical malpractice claim as early as December 1972 and contacted other attorneys.
- The family hired a 'second attorney' on March 15, 1973, specifically to pursue the medical malpractice claim.
- The second attorney failed to file the medical malpractice lawsuit before the statute of limitations expired.
Procedural Posture:
- Daugherty, as administrator for the Estate of Lula Roach, sued attorney E. Michael Runner for legal malpractice in the Fayette Circuit Court, the trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Runner, on the legal malpractice claim.
- The jury also made a finding that the estate would have recovered $146,123.75 on the underlying medical malpractice claim had it been filed on time.
- Daugherty, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the judgment exonerating Runner to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- Runner, as the defendant-appellee, filed a protective cross-appeal regarding the jury's finding on the amount of damages in the underlying medical malpractice claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an attorney, retained under a contract to pursue claims for injuries sustained in an automobile accident, negligent as a matter of law for failing to investigate or advise the client of a potential medical malpractice claim arising from the subsequent medical treatment for those injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Hayes, Judge.
No. An attorney retained for a specific purpose is not negligent as a matter of law for failing to pursue a related but distinct claim, as the question of whether the attorney met the professional standard of care is a matter for the jury to decide. The standard of care is that which is commonly possessed and exercised by members of the legal profession in similar circumstances. Here, the written contract retained Runner for claims arising from the auto accident. While an attorney cannot completely disregard other potential legal remedies that come to their attention, Runner's duty regarding a potential medical malpractice claim was not absolute. Given the conflicting testimony about whether a medical malpractice action was discussed and the fact that the client's family hired a second attorney for that specific purpose, the question of Runner's negligence was not a matter of law for the court but a question of fact properly submitted to the jury. The jury's verdict, supported by sufficient evidence, will not be disturbed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that legal malpractice is a fact-intensive inquiry, making summary judgment or a directed verdict for the plaintiff difficult to obtain when key facts are in dispute. It clarifies that while an attorney's duty may extend beyond the precise language of a retainer agreement, the scope of that duty is not limitless. The ruling also implicitly highlights the importance of clear communication and written agreements between attorneys and clients to define the scope of representation. For future cases, it establishes that a client's own actions, such as hiring subsequent counsel, are relevant facts for a jury to consider when determining if the original attorney's conduct was a 'substantial factor' in causing the client's loss.
Unlock the full brief for Daugherty v. Runner