Vol. 2003/24       

• KBA Proposed Advertising Regulations

  • All comments should be sent to the KBA no later than September 1, 2003 - the Attorneys' Advertising Commission, c/o Bruce K. Davis, KBA Executive Director, 514 West Main Street, Frankfort, KY 40601-1883.
  • Proposed Rule Changes - In PDF  <<<--- Here's a link to the proposed changes. 
     

• KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS 
  FOR JULY 28 - AUGUST 1, 2003
  Adobe Reader Required (www.Adobe.com)
   
• Kentucky SUPREME COURT Decisions 
  PUBLISHED - None
   

• Kentucky SUPREME COURT Decisions
  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - None
   

• Kentucky COURT OF APPEALS Decisions
  PUBLISHED - Friday, August 1, 2003
  

  2001-CA-002338.pdf Size: 27 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Lindall v. Kentucky Retirement System Government Employment, Disability State employee tries to stretch the boundaries of what is covered under the Retirement and Disability Act-to no avail for the third time.  Will she quit or try for four?
  2001-CA-002674.pdf    Size: 22 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Wilder v. Noonchester Statute of Limitations, MVA CA affirmed dismissal of personal injury claim for failure to amend complaint against proper parties within statute of limitations which was two years after the last PIP payment.  CA rejected argument that the period runs from the day the health provider deposits the check as opposed to the day the PIP carrier issues the payment. "See Lawson v. Helton Sanitation, Inc., Ky., 34 S.W.3d 52, 57 (2000). In other words, the date the PIP provider issued the check is the date the PIP provider 'made' the payment." Comment #1:  Nice try by the plaintiff.   "Under KRS 304.39-230, a provision of the Motor Vehicles Reparations Act, if reparation benefits, such as PIP payments, have been paid, an action for further benefits 'may be commenced not later than two (2) years after the last payment of benefits.'" Wilder.   However, don't forget spouse's consortium claim is the normal 1 year! Comment #2: Please note another clue from appellate courts who are continuing to highlight errors made by counsel in failing to preserve the issue or error for appeal  - "In determining the appropriate date as to the statute of limitations, we may only consider evidence contained in the record and introduced to the trial court for its review. See Barnard, 933 S.W.2d at 396. In this case, Wilder attempted to introduce evidence through her Civil Appeal Prehearing Statement as well as in her January 25, 2002 brief suggesting that the actual date of her final PIP payment was November 2, 1999, rather than October 25, 1999, as established by the record before the trial court. We may only consider the PIP worksheet filed below that establishes that Kentucky Farm Bureau’s last date of payment to Wilder was October 25, 1999. Therefore, the trial court properly concluded that Wilder’s amended complaint was barred by KRS 304.39-230."  This seems to be just another follow-up on the case a few months ago in Allstate v. Powell where the CA ignored evidence (eg., insurance policy) that the appellant failed to attach as an exhibit (even tho the appellee did attach extracts thereof).  However, the language was gentler this time around.
  2002-CA-000845.pdf Size: 56 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Hicks v. T & M Jewelry, Inc. Negligent Sale of Gun and Federal Gun Control Act CA remanded summary judgment dismissing claims against store that sold gun which injured the plaintiff.  Scott Greer, age 18, purchased a .22 caliber semi-automatic pistol from The Castle. The next day, while he was a passenger in a car with Jennifer Hicks driving, he pointed the pistol at her head to scare her, thinking the chamber was empty. He pulled the trigger and shot her in the face, causing serious injury. Criminal charges were brought and Greer pled guilty to Assault in the Fourth Degree. Jennifer, by and through her parents sued the The Castle and its parent and sub companies, claiming that the purchase of the handgun was accomplished by reason of The Castle's negligence and by reason of violations of Kentucky and Federal Law (18 U.S.C. 922(b)). The Castle moved for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the claims asserted against them for alleged violations of the Federal Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. 922) did not give rise to a private cause of action under KRS 446.070. Additionally, The Castle argued that any alleged negligence or violations were not a substantial factor in, or proximate cause of, Greer's firing the handgun. The Trial Court rendered an opinion on Sept. 2, 1998, granting partial summary judgment in favor of The Castle holding the Plaintiff could not pursue a strict liability claim based on The Federal Gun Control Act. In ruling, the Court held that Alderman v. Bradley, Ky.App., 957 S.W.2d 264 (1997), held that 18 U.S.C. 922 does not give rise to a claim for negligence per se under Kentucky law. Plaintiffs were allowed to pursue their common law negligence claim. However, on March 28, 2002, the Court then ruled that the common law negligence claim was also barred because the law does not consider Scott Greer's conduct to be foreseeable and thus, as a superseding cause, the Defendant's (The Castle) were relieved of liability. In sum, the Court held that duty and causation were clearly absent from this case. Plaintiff's appealed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the grant of summary judgment by determining if the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals held that they could not say, as a matter of law, that Greer's actions were so extraordinary and unforeseeable as to relieve The Castle of liability, in the event it is determined by a jury that they were negligent. The Court remanded the case back for a trial to have a jury consider whether the sale of the handgun to the 18 year old Greer was reasonable in light of the federal statute, the rules governing the business, and all of the other relevant facts surrounding the subject transaction. Jill B.

• Kentucky COURT OF APPEALS Decisions
  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - Friday, August 1, 2003

  2001-CA-002551.pdf      Size: 20 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Smith v. Nicodemus Judgment, Enforcement CA affirmed TC's judgment awarding $5,000 for easement by necessity upon construction of driveway. Order said $5,000 upon proof of construction.  Order was not an abuse of discretion.  It stood. (Note.  Unhappy about result and thought other side got a windfall.  Paid $2,000 only.  Basically, loser needed to get over it.)
  2001-CA-002711.pdf Size: 19 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Harris v. Com. Criminal CA affirmed TC's denial of Defendant's motion for directed verdict in DUI and Criminal Mischief case.  Defendant properly convicted of DUI on other evidence despite breath test below legal limit.
  2002-CA-000219.pdf Size: 27 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Bixler v. Com. Criminal CA affirmed Defendant's conviction for 1st Degree Rape.  Fayette County was the proper venue.  There was sufficient evidence to establish forcible compulsion.  Commonwealth's closing was not improper.
  2002-CA-000225.pdf Size: 32 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Mifflin Estate v. Mifflin Wills and Estates  Spouse sues executrix in circuit court alleging that executrix improperly identified spouse's assets as estate assets, that executrix used estate funds for her personal expenses, and that executrix was generally bad in all the usual ways.  Spouse wins in Circiut Court; executrix appeals.  Court of Appeals affirms without addressing the merits, but adds the comment that it's job was difficult because the record was confusing and consisted mostly of counsel's unhelpful arguments.  "Comment:  This case is a cautionary tale about not using affidavits and testimony in the record."
  2002-CA-000304.pdf Size: 43 kb Date: 7/30/2003	K.M. by his next friend v. Fayette County Schools Schools, Disciplinary Action, Immunity, Civil Rights CA reversed/remanded summary judgment in which claimed student's expulsion from school was racially motivated.  TC dismissed 42 USC 1983 action concluding board of education was not a 'person' and entitled to sovereign immunity.  Whether a school board is an entity that "possesses Eleventh Amendment immunity is to be decided by application of federal law and, thus, hold that a Kentucky local board of education is not an entity protected under the Eleventh Amendment and is a “person” amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, we are of the opinion the circuit court erred as a matter of law by concluding that the Board of Education was not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983."  CA also held under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act that "high school and the Board of Education constitute places of public accommodation under KRS 344.130." Comment:  Rather lengthy decision that addresses governmental immunity, civil rights issues, and arbitrariness of actions.  Nice educational opinion for us who are unlearned in the area.
  2002-CA-000446.pdf Size: 21 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Kennedy v. Com. Criminal CA affirmed TC's denial of pro se Defendant's CR 60.02 motion alleging TC incorrectly computed sentence.
  2002-CA-000489.pdf Size: 24 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Putty v. Morgan Prisons,  CA affirmed Circuit Court's dismissal of pro se inmate's Petition for Declaratory Relief pursuant to KRS § 418.040.   "In the special context of prison disciplinary actions, due process requires only: (1) advance written notice of the charges; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and to present evidence; (3) a brief written statement by the fact finder of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the decision; and (4) "some evidence" to support the decision."
  2002-CA-000670.pdf Size: 30 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Taylor v. Million Prisons,  CA affirmed Circuit Court's dismissal of pro se inmate's Petition for Declaratory Relief pursuant to KRS § 418.040.  Inmate not denied due process.
  2002-CA-000832.pdf Size: 37 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Anderson v. Thurman Family Law, Increase Child Support When ex-wife motioned court to modify child support, it was error for the court to exclude proof of husband's capital gains. Clary v. Clary, Ky.App., 54 S.W.3d 568 (2001), held that KRS 403.212(2) defienes "gross income" broadly to include income from any source and explicitly includes capital gains. Additionally, pursuant to KRS 403.213(1), the provisions of any decree respecting child support may be modified only as to installments accruing subsequent to the filing of the motion for modification. Where a motion is to require the parties to exchange financial information, not to modify child support, an increase in child support will not be retroactive to the filing of the motion to exchange financial information.
  2002-CA-000882.pdf Size: 27 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Johnson v. Triangle Insulation Asbestos Litigation, Summary Judgment, Discovery CA affirmed SJ dismissing plaintiff's claim.  "Although there are side issues related to appellants’ compliance with court orders concerning discovery and the orderly progress of this complicated asbestos litigation, the primary issue is whether there is sufficient proof in the record that Daniel Johnson was exposed to asbestos fibers emanating from products manufactured by appellees, and whether that exposure was a substantial factor in causing his disease of asbestosis. Having made a careful review of the record, and having heard oral arguments by the parties, we find a lack of such evidence, and affirm the summary judgment of thetrial court."
  2002-CA-000894.pdf Size: 27 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Colmore v. Com. Criminal CA affirmed Defendant's conviction and 7 year sentence for 2nd Degree Assault.  Defendant not entitled to directed verdict.  No reversible error in jury instructions.
  2002-CA-000936.pdf Size: 34 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Shepperd v. Shepperd Negligence, Summary Judgment, Judicial Admissions CA affirmed summary judgment dismissing husband's complaint against wife for injuries sustained in MVA following fish-tailing on icy road.  Husband-plaintiff admitted at his deposition that he had a good view, car was in good condition, and his wife did everything she could  do in the accident.  TC granted defendant's summary judgment.  Husband's sworn statements at deposition constituted judicial admissions.  Husband's efforts to overcome SJ rejected by CA - not res ipsa loquitor, wife saying she was in a wreck was raised too late but CA doubted it equated to liability. Comment.  This case shows the problems when husband sues wife.  You can thank me for not mentioning the wife was "Joy", the accident occurred on a road called "Oddville",  she was on "thin ice",  or that it was a "dark and snowy" night.  Bottom line was husband saw what happened, no other witnesses besides wife, and he not only had nothing to say about her negligence, but he added she did everything she could do to avoid the accident.  In light of the minor injuries, you got to admit this case was on "thin ice" from the get go.   I have also found many nonpublished opinions are good sources of Kentucky hornbook law, and this talks about the elements of a negligence claim,  judicial admissions, and res ipsa loquitor. Comment #2.  Another shot by the CA regarding completing the record and raising issue for the first time on appeal.  "Finally, Jerry asserts that summary judgment is unavailable because Joy admitted fault after the accident when she stated, “I wrecked my car.” He claims this statement creates a disputed issue of material fact. While we question whether this statement constitutes an admission of negligence, Jerry failed to preserve this issue for review. He has raised it for the first time on appeal. This Court will not review issues not raised in or decided by the trial court. Regional Jail Authority v. Tackett, Ky., 770 S.W.2d 225, 228 (1989); Burgess v. Taylor, Ky. App., 44 S.W.3d 806, 814 (2001)."
  2002-CA-000990.pdf Size: 55 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Lewis v. Com. Government Employment, Political Activities CA upheld constitutionality of KRS 18A.140 re: restriction of policitical activities of classified government employees.
  2002-CA-001056.pdf Size: 53 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Hollis v. Hollis Child Support, Property Division In a split custody arrangement (discussed in KRS 403.212(2)(h)) each parent must be a residential custodian of one or more of the children. Where all 3 children live with Mom and none live primarily with Dad, there is no "split custody" arrangment. As such, Dad is not entitled to a split custody calculation pursuant to KRS 403.212(6). Trial Court has broad discretion in allocating the tax exemptions between the parties so as to maximize the benefit of the exemption for the children. Hart v. Hart, Ky.App., 774 S.W.2d 455(1989). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair or unsupported by sound legal principals. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, 11 S.W.3d at 581. An appellate court will not disturb the circuit court's valuation of the marital property unless it is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. Heller v. Heller, Ky.App., 672 S.W.2d 945 (1984). This case also discusses determination of who pays for private school, piano lessons, splitting a consolidation loan, and custodial evaluation fee.
  2002-CA-001135.pdf Size: 22 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Ball v. Camp Creek Mining Co. Statute of Limitations, Instructions, Prejudgment Interest CA affirmed - cause of action was timely filed based upon the date of the discovery of the unlawful conversion. CA reversed in part for failure to give plaintiff punitive damage instruction since evidence of theft showed intentional misconduct and failure to proscecute criminally does not remove punitives from consideration.  TC did not abuse discretion in denying prejudgment interest. Comment.  Interesting situation where jury was given interrogatory which included statute of limitations question.  How?  By simply adding the following if found the basic theft/conduct - "If you answered ‘YES’ to either Instruction No. 3 or 4, do you further believe from the evidence that less than one year before June 17, 1996, employees or agents of Camp Creek Mining Corporation discovered that Talbert Ball, Ron Ball, or both of them, alone or as an accessory to another or others, took the coal auger?"
  2002-CA-001181.pdf Size: 34 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Woods v. Com. Criminal CA affirmed O rder of Jefferson Circuit Judge Ann Shake denying his RCr 11.42 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence for wanton murder. Defendant claimed he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel due to counsel's failure to object to a jury instruction and request an admonition concerning a statement made by a witness .
  2002-CA-001364.pdf Size: 28 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Pike v. Pike Family law, Joint Custody, Property Division  Discusses visitation when one child is ADHD and the other is autistic. Expert gave opinions regarding custody arrangement, the trial court altered the arrangement and the Court of Appeals reversed. KRS 403.320(1) states that reasonable visitation must be granted to a non-primary residential parent. Reasonable visitation must be determined based on the circumstances of each parent and child. Drury v. Drury, Ky.App., 32 S.W.3d 521 (2000).
  2002-CA-001373.pdf Size: 20 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Walker v. Steward Default Judgment, Setting Aside Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment granted when Defendant was served on 3 separate occasions, and she filed answer 19 days after being served third time, although Default Judgment was granted after Defendant's 20 days to file answer expired as it related to the first date of service.  Court of Appeals held this was confusing to Defendant and it was abuse of discretion to not set aside Default Judgment in light of facts and Childress v Childress, Ky., 335 S.W.2d 351 (1960).
  2002-CA-001790.pdf Size: 45 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Toney v. Com. Criminal CA affirmed TC's denial of Defendant's motion for post-conviction relief. The issue here is whether the terms of KRS 533.060(1) preclude the application of KRS 533.010 (2) and thereby bar Toney from probation with alternative sentencing.  Answer:  yes.
  2002-CA-001917.pdf Size: 18 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Gibbs v. Com. Criminal CA affirmed TC's denial of pro se Defendant's motion to vacate.
  2002-CA-001930.pdf Size: 28 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Wilson v. Frost Real Property, Easements  This case involved a dispute over an easement providing access to a family cemetery.  The Circuit Court read two deeds to discern the grantor's intent about the entire tract of land.  The Court of Appeals reversed because each deed was unambiguous and the Circuit Court should have only relied on the specific deed covering the tract where the easement was claimed.
  2002-CA-002038.pdf Size: 25 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Todd v. Kentucky Heartland Mortgage Co. Summary Judgment, Contracts, Fiduciary Duty, Bad Faith, Fraud, Consumer Practice Act Summary Judgment against Plaintiff on fraud claim as well as Consumer Protection Act.  Defendant "required" bonded construction workers on home remodel or no loan.  Plaintiff's hired the company recommended by Defendant.  Ooops!  He wasn't bonded and did a Rube Goldberg job.     C.A. says that the pleadings, although pitifully crafted, gave enough notice for a claim of fraud and overruled S/J.  They did uphold the Consumer Protection Act S/J stating that the whole claim arose out of a touching to real property and thus was specifically excluded.
  2002-CA-002079.pdf Size: 29 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Yeager v. Com. Criminal CA affirmed Jefferson Circuit Judge Barry Willet's Order denying Defendant's RCr 11.42 motion to vacate.
  2002-CA-002103.pdf Size: 28 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Swartz v. Com. Criminal CA affirmed TC's denial of pro se Defendant's motion to vacate pursuant to CR 60.02.
  2002-CA-002308.pdf Size: 48 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Owens v. Com. Criminal CA affirmed TC's denial of pro se Defendant's CR 60.02 motion to vacate.  Motion properly denied on procedural grounds.
  2002-CA-002521.pdf Size: 37 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Brokaw v. Million Corrections CA affirmed Circuit Court's dismissal of pro se inmate's Petition for Declaratory Judgment.
  2002-CA-002561.pdf Size: 21 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Fancher v. Callahan Corrections CA affirmed Circuit Court's dismissal of pro se inmate's Petition for Declaratory Judgment.
  2003-CA-000056.pdf Size: 19 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Trim Masters, Inc. v. Clark Workers Compensation- Subsequent Disabling Condition Clark  contracted carpal tunnel syndrome in 2000, underwent bilateral surgical procedures in late Spring-Early Summer of that year and, aside from a period of time off work that Fall, returned to work until a non-work related condition caused her to again be off work beginning in December 2000 for which she had surgeries in 2001.  She never returned to work.  ALJ Cowden awarded TTD, PPD and medical expense benefits and was affirmed by the Board and Curt of Appeals.  The employer's several challenges to the benefits awarded (medicals and income benefits) were rejected on the grounds that the award was supported by substantial evidence of record.  A worker will not be deprived of compensation merely because of the existence of an independent, concurrent cause of disability.
  2003-CA-000269.pdf Size: 20 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Patrick v. Christopher East Health Care Workers Compensation - Statute of Limitations Patrick was injured on 9/12/99, worked one day thereafter, and has not worked since.  The employer filed its first report of injury with the DWC on 10/29/99.  The employer then filed a Form IA-2 on 11/19/99 denying the claim and the Commissioner sent a letter apprising Patrick of the denial and the applicable statute of limitations.  The employer paid no benefits.  Patrick filed a Form 101 on 9/28/01.  ALJ Riggs dismissed the claim as not being timely filed and was affirmed by the Board and Court of Appeals.  Given that the employer did not commence, terminate, change or resume the making of any benefit payments to Patrick, the date of filing of the form IA-2 did not operate to toll the statute of limitations.
  2003-CA-000368.pdf Size: 29 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Edwards v. Harlan App. Reg. Hospital Workers Comp  - Reopening Deadline - KRS 342.125 Edwards suffered 2 back injuries in 1995 and settled his claims for those injuries in April, 1996.  He sought reopening in August, 2002 but was refused by ALJ Lowther based on the 4 year limitation on reopening contained in KRS 342.125 as amended subsequent to the 1996 settlement. Edwards' challenge to the constitutionality on the bar to reopening after 4 years of the original award was rejec ted by the  Court of Appeals based on McCool v. Martin Nursery & Landscaping, Inc.,  43 S.W.3d 256 (2001), that affirmed the constitutionality of the 4 year limitation.    Comment:  This case will certainly be appealed by Edwards' counsel, Ronald Cox, to challenge the holding in McCool, given that he is making similar arguments in the Ronnie Cook case (which can be found in this newswire, further down the page).  TGH
  2003-CA-000415.pdf Size: 18 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Farmer v. Workers Comp. Board Workers Comp  - Reopening - Substantial Evidence Farmer injured his back in 1987 .  He sought to reopen his 1987 claim while pursuing benefits for a 1998 neck injury.  ALJ Riggs' decision finding farmer failed to prove a worsening of his condition on reopening was twice remanded for entry of additional findings of fact.  This ruling is from Farmer's third appeal. The Board and Court of Appeals affirmed the ALJ's failure to find a worsening of condition  or to award permanent total disability benefits where Farmer had past job experience within his limitations, he continued to work for several years until there was a general mine layoff, the only physician to have addressed his low back condition would release him to return to work, he sought non-mine related work after the layoff, the physicians addressing his cervical problems would allow him to return to work, and he has a good work record following his 1991 surgery.
  2003-CA-000519.pdf Size: 21 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Cook v. Unicorn Mining Workers Comp   - Reopening Deadline - KRS 342.125 Cook injured his back in 1993 and was awarded benefits in 1995.  He moved to reopen on Mar ch 26, 1998 but was determined not to have any change of physical condition  at that time.  He made a similar motion on July 19, 2002, which ALJ Borders  denied as time barred by  the 4 year limitation on reopening contained in KRS 342.125 as amended subsequent to the 1995 award. Cooks' challenge to the constitutionality on the bar to reopening after 4 years of the original award was rejec ted by the  Court of Appeals based on McCool v. Martin Nursery & Landscaping, Inc. ,  43 S.W.3d 256 (2001), and Nygaard v. Goodin Bros., Inc. , Ky., -- S.W.3d -- (2003 WL 21355415) (2003), that affirmed the constitutionality of the 4 year limitation. Cook's argument that the Commissioner was required to give Cook notice of this post-award change in the law was also rejected.   Comment:  This case will certainly be appealed by  Cook's counsel, Ronald Cox, to challenge the holding in McCool and Nygaard given that he is making similar arguments in the Barbara Edwards case.  TGH
  2003-CA-001370.pdf Size: 24 kb Date: 7/30/2003	Black Diamond Pest Control, Inc. v. Com. Administrative Law, Injunctive Relief This case is about the need for a structural pest control license and a dispute with the regulatory agency. No license meant no business!  "Black Diamond and Duncan’s CR 65.07 motion for interlocutory relief is hereby GRANTED and the Franklin Circuit Court is DIRECTED to immediately enter a temporary injunction pursuant to CR 65.04 prohibiting theDepartment from taking further action against Black Diamond or Duncan pending a final judgment. The trial court shall also set an appropriate bond in this matter."

   

   

• Western District Court - Kentucky
  August 1- 7, 2003

  None!

   

• Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 
  August 1-7  2003 (opinions on official site)
  

  Opinion DocketSheet Pub Date Short Title/District 03a0268p.06 02-1377 2003/08/05  USA v. Rapanos     Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City 03a0269p.06 01-5731 2003/08/05  USA v. Clinton     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis 03a0270p.06 01-6460 2003/08/05  Taylor v. Keith     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville 03a0271p.06 01-6260 2003/08/05  USA v. Baker     Western District of Tennessee at Jackson 03a0271p.06 01-6313 2003/08/05  USA v. Tate     Western District of Tennessee at Jackson 03a0271p.06 01-6314 2003/08/05  USA v. Patterson     Western District of Tennessee at Jackson 03a0272p.06 02-1010 2003/08/05  Huss v. King Company     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids 03a0273p.06 01-4129 2003/08/06  Ross v. USA     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus 03a0274p.06 01-2416 2003/08/06  USA v. Bournes     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit 03a0275p.06 01-5953 2003/08/06  Seay v. TVA     Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga 03a0277p.06 01-4118 2003/08/07  Joshua v. DeWitt     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus 03a0278p.06 01-4271 2003/08/07  Scorteanu v. INS     State of Michigan Agency 03a0276p.06 01-4118 2003/08/07  Joshua v. DeWitt     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus 03a0277p.06 01-4271 2003/08/07  Scorteanu v. INS     State of Michigan Agency 03a0278p.06 01-6028 2003/08/08  Anthony v. BTR Auto Sealing     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville 03a0279p.06 01-2026 2003/08/08  Barnes v. Elo     Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor

Automobiles, Negligence,  Stop Sign Missing

• Walton v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 655 S.W.2d 11 (Ky.App., 1982)
  Even if a stop sign is missing, the vehicle traveling on the superior street has the right of way over vehicle traveling on inferior street.
• Reidling v. Wickes Lumber & Bldg. Supply Co., 471 S.W.2d 319 (Ky.,1971)
  No claim for indemnity for alleged negligent knocking down of stop sign by third-party defendant's truck three days before the accident since it was not proximate cause of the accident, and third-party defendant was not liable to either plaintiff-truck occupants for their injuries or station wagon owner and driver for indemnity or contribution.
• City of Russellville v. Greer, 440 S.W.2d 269 (Ky.,1968)
  City has not duty  to maintain stop signs on its streets and failure to maintain signs does not constitute breach of duty to injured motorist.
  
  

• Click here for list maintenance (like you want to receive these).  
• Forward to some folks in your mailbox.

• Disclaimer at www.LouisvilleLaw.com/disclaimer.htm
  
• The Content contained on the Web site has been prepared as a service to its readers and the Internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice. We have used reasonable efforts in collecting, preparing and providing quality information and material, but do not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, adequacy or currency of the information contained on or linked to the Web site on in this e-mail. Users of information from the Web site or e-mail or links do so at their own risk.

Thank you, 

Mike Stevens