Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh
319 S.W.3d 385 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care with respect to an open and obvious danger if the landowner should anticipate that an invitee will be harmed despite the danger's obviousness, such as when the invitee's attention is foreseeably distracted.
Facts:
- McIntosh, a licensed paramedic, was transporting a critically ill patient to the Kentucky River Medical Center (the Hospital).
- Immediately outside the Hospital's emergency room entrance was an unmarked and unprotected curb.
- This curb design was unique, as other hospitals in the surrounding counties had smooth, even surfaces at their emergency entrances.
- McIntosh had previously navigated this entrance approximately 400 times without incident.
- While moving the patient, McIntosh's attention was focused on monitoring the patient's health and intravenous lines, as was her professional duty.
- McIntosh tripped over the curb, fell, and suffered a fractured hip and sprained wrist.
Procedural Posture:
- McIntosh sued the Hospital in Breathitt Circuit Court (the trial court) for negligence.
- The Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the open and obvious doctrine barred the claim, which the trial court denied.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found the Hospital liable and awarded McIntosh $155,409.70 in damages.
- The Hospital filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), renewing its open and obvious doctrine argument, which the trial court also denied.
- The Hospital, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Kentucky Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Kentucky (the highest court) granted discretionary review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the open and obvious doctrine completely bar recovery for an invitee who is injured by a dangerous condition when the landowner should have anticipated that the invitee would be distracted and fail to protect themselves from the danger?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Noble
No. The open and obvious doctrine does not act as a complete bar to recovery where the landowner should anticipate harm despite the danger's obviousness. The modern approach, consistent with Kentucky's comparative fault system, treats the obviousness of a danger as a factor for the jury to consider when apportioning fault, rather than as a complete negation of the landowner's duty of care. The court adopts the position of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A, which holds that a possessor of land is still liable for known or obvious dangers if the possessor should anticipate the harm. Here, it was foreseeable to the Hospital that a paramedic transporting a critically ill patient would be distracted and focused on the patient's needs rather than the walkway. The Hospital should have anticipated that McIntosh's attention would be diverted, that she might forget about the unique curb in a stressful situation, or that she would proceed despite the risk because the need to get the patient inside outweighed the danger. The traditional rule functions as a form of contributory negligence, which is incompatible with Kentucky's comparative fault framework.
Dissenting - Justice Schroder
Yes. The open and obvious doctrine should concern a question of duty, and because the curb was open and obvious, the hospital owed no duty to McIntosh. The majority's decision unwisely changes established law by imposing a new, vague duty on landowners to conform their property to the design of other properties in the area. Until this decision, a landowner was not liable for injuries caused by open and obvious dangers that did not violate any building codes. The majority now requires a landowner to fix an obvious condition if harm can be anticipated, which is an unnecessary departure from established precedent.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Kentucky's premises liability law, moving the state in line with the modern trend and the Restatement (Second) of Torts. It effectively transforms the 'open and obvious' doctrine from a near-absolute bar to recovery, decided by a judge as a matter of law, into a factor for the jury to consider in a comparative fault analysis. This change makes it more difficult for landowners to win summary judgment in cases involving obvious hazards, particularly when a plaintiff can argue their attention was foreseeably distracted. The ruling emphasizes foreseeability as the key element in determining duty and reinforces that land possessors, who are in the best position to remedy dangers, bear the ultimate responsibility for maintaining safe premises.
