Kentucky Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Renting a car is a very common occurrence when one travels. And in each state, the requirements for renting a car are somewhat different. As it goes to insurance, some states make you show proof of insurance, while others do not. Some states make you purchase the car rental insurances, while others do not. Thus the question one asks oneself when one does not purchase the additional insurance coverage is “Am I covered under my own insurance policy?” or “Am I covered under the insurance policy of the primary person who is renting the car?” or "Am I covered by my credit card?" All good questions that a Kentucky car accident lawyer can answer for you.

As per the below video suggests, it is always good to get car rental insurance.

Recently in Kentucky, the Stacy family had a car rental insurance case decided by a Kentucky court. Mr. Donald Stacy and his daughter Kim Szajka rented a car from ABC Rent-A-Car while on a trip to Arizona. The car rental contract was with Kim as the primary driver and Mr. Stacy as an additional driver. Both refrained from purchasing additional insurance coverage. Mr. Stacy was insured by Shelter Mutual Insurance Company (“Shelter”) and Kim was insured by Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”). Allstate was the only insurer listed on the rental agreement.

While in Arizona, Mr. Stacy was driving the rental car while Kim was not in the car. He was rear ended by an uninsured driver. He sustained bodily injuries and incurred medical expenses. The property damage to the car was $13,237.26.

After the accident, Kim filed a lawsuit against both Shelter and Allstate for the amount of the property damage. Mr. Stacy joined in the suit and sued both insurance companies as well. Eventually Kim’s suit was resolved, but Mr. Stacy’s lawsuit continued with his Kentucky car accident lawyer.

Allstate at trial moved for summary judgment claiming that Mr. Stacy did not qualify as an insured person or a resident relative of an insured person who would be protected by Allstate’s coverage. The trial court reviewed the Allstate policy regarding who an “insured person” was and what an “insured auto” was and came to the conclusion that Mr. Stacy was in fact not an insured person and that the rental car was no in fact an insured auto. Mr. Stacy appealed. The appellate court agreed with the lower court. (Stacy v. Allstate Insurance company, 2009 WL 1349228 (Ky.App)).

Continue reading " Kentucky Car Rental Accident Case – Rental Car Insurance Important Issue " »

Recently, in December of 2009, the appellate court upheld the decision of the lower trial court’s ruling. In Slone v. Ibert (2009 WL 4723135 (Ky. App.), the driver of a car was found to be not liable for the damages of the collision because he blacked out before the crash. A review of this case is to follow by car accident lawyer Andrew Alitowski.

On November 6, 2003, a Mr. Ibert was employed by Oldham’s Truck and Car Source in Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Ibert was driving a Ford Expedition to show a potential customer. He was driving down a road when he struck Mr. Slone’s car in the rear. At the time of the accident, Mr. Slone was stopped at a red light. At the scene of the accident, Mr. Ibert reported that he lost consciousness as he approached the red light. Both drivers were taken to the hospital.

The hospital records for Mr. Ibert did show an elevated level of carbon dioxide in his blood which could be a sign of someone passing out. Also, during the trial, a Dr. Martin testified that Mr. Ibert was also falling asleep during his examination in the ER. Dr. Martin believed Mr. Ibert may have sleep apnea. This was later confirmed by another doctor a year later.

On July 11, 2004, Mr. Slone field suit alleging physical and mental injuries. He claimed he experienced a worsening of preexisting back pain, the onset of new shoulder pain which required surgery, and a worsening of a preexisting bipolar disorder. These were all claimed by his car accident lawyer.

Continue reading " Car Accident in Kentucky Case " »

The following video was on the Today Show which helps give examples of what Sexual Harassment in the workplace is.

Recently, in Federal USDC for the W.D. of Kentucky, a reverse discrimination case was brought. The Federal Judge in that case granted summary judgment in that case in essence dismissing it. The case was brought by a Ms. Pusey who claimed that UPS violated her civil rights.

This case involved allegations of co-worker harassment and claims for hostile work environment based on sex and race discrimination under Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA). Ms. Pusey is white and had been employed by UPS for 20 years. Mr. Carter is African-American who had worked for UPS for approximately 6 years. In 2005, the two workers were in a dispute over a work computer. It was not a major fight, but Ms. Pusey claimed it marked the beginning of a campaign by Mr. Carter to harass and intimidate her. For example, Ms. Pusey claims that on September 16, 2005, Mr. Carter passed by her elbowing her in her left breast, and that the same day he tried to trip her. She reported this to her supervisor. For this, Mr. Carter was suspended for 30 days, without pay.

Then on November 23, 2005, Mr. Carter allegedly told Ms. Pusey that it’s good to be black man. She reported this to her supervisor who then spoke to Mr. Carter and instructed him to stay away from Ms. Pusey. Ms. Pusey alleges that for the next 4 months, Mr. Carter harassed her approximately 12 to 15 times. He would make gestures towards her and noises. She finally again reported this to her supervisors. They sent Mr. Carter a letter informing him to stop and tried to schedule the two employees on different shifts and that Mr. Carter was to remain 50 feet from Ms. Pusey.

Ms. Pusey claims Mr. Carter violated the 50 feet rule at least 10 to 12 times from February 2006 to December 2007. She reported these violations and again management spoke to Mr. Carter. Ms. Pusey alleged that liability exists on the part of UPS for the creation of a hostile work environment based on sex and raced discrimination under KCRA. Ms. Pusey alleges that she was harassed by Mr. Carter based on her sex and race in violation of KCRA.

The court stated that to establish a prima facie case of a hostile work environment based on sex or race, a plaintiff must show that: 1) she is a member of a protected class, 2) she was subjected to unwelcome sexual or racial harassment, 3) the harassment was based on her sex or race, 4) the harassment was severe or pervasive, and 5) the employer is vicariously liable. UPS for arguments sake conceded many of the above points, expect they said that Ms. Pusey could not show she was harassed based on her sex or race. And the Court agreed, that Ms. Pusey failed to show that but for the fact that she is Caucasian and/or a woman, Mr. Carter would not have harassed her. By Ms. Pusey’s own admission, none of the comments made were sexual in nature and the elbowing of her breast was not in a sexual nature. Further Ms. Pusey admits that Mr. Carter never made overtly sexist remarks or threats to her. The Court held that ‘a trier of fact cannot infer that harassment emanated from an anti-woman bias merely because a man directed that harassment toward a woman.’ There was no evidence that Mr. Carter’s actions towards Ms. Pusey were nothing more than personal. And there is no evidence that any of the harassment toward Ms. Pusey were because of a bias towards Caucasian people. (See Pusey v. UPS, Inc., 2009 WL 1542714 (W.D. Ky.))

Continue reading " Hostile Work Environment and Sexual Harassment in Kentucky " »

Recently, in Harrison County, a county employee, an administrative assistant at a community action council filed a lawsuit claiming that her employer was liable under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. (KCRA). This is a good example to show just how hard it can be to win a discrimination case or sexual harassment case. After you read the facts, you would have thought that it was a slam dunk for the female plaintiff. But, she actually lost at the trial level and had to appeal to get the case back to trial.

In Cobb v. Community Action Council (CAC) for Lexington-Fayette, 2008 WL 1087122 (Ky.App), Ms. Cobb was employed by CAC since 1999 as an administrative assistant. In 2002 a Mr. Hinton became her boss. Ms. Cobb alleged that from April 2002 to September 2002, Mr. Hinton made inappropriate and sexual comments to her. He indicated to her that he wanted a sexual relationship. She told him ‘no.’ But in September of 2002, Mr. Hinton exposed himself to her. He did so again in October 2002. From October 2002 through April 2003, Mr. Hinton forced Ms. Cobb to perform oral sex on him six to twelve times. He would threaten her with her job if she told or did anything about it. In early 2003, the staff members all got together and had a secret meeting to discuss Mr. Hinton’s intimidating management style. On February 27, 2003, the entire staff had a meeting with CAC senior management team to discuss Mr. Hinton. The sexual advances and comments and threats were all discussed. Except Ms. Cobb did not say anything for fear of losing her job and because she was married. Mr. Hinton was thereafter interviewed and denied all allegations of sexual harassment.

A few days after the sister of a supervisor of CAC told her that she was sexually harassed by Hinton when she worked for CAC. But the supervisor did not tell anyone this. In March, CAC was made aware of another person claiming sexual harassment. Then in March 2003, Mr. Hinton made Ms. Cobb go to a meeting with him where he again sexually assaulted her. On April 29, 2003, CAC placed Mr. Hinton on six months probation. Ms. Cobb was horrified and thereafter had a nervous breakdown. Finally on May 1, 2003, Ms. Cobb told CAC, through her lawyer, what had happened. On May 19, 2003, Ms. Cobb began to see a psychiatrist and rape crisis counselor. On June 12, 2003, CAC terminated Mr. Hinton.

Now you would think after reading the above, that this case was a slam dunk. A no brainer. But, no it was not and because of recent Federal and Supreme Court rulings, I will explain to you why.

Continue reading " Kentucky Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment Claims. " »

When people think of sexual harassment or hostile work environment in the work place, most people think of some type of harassment that has gone on for a long period of time. If a new employee, let’s say a female employee, goes to a new job, the amount of time does not always play a role in supporting or dismissing her claims of sexual harassment or hostile work environment says Louisville Sexual Harassment attorney Andrew S. Alitowski. Though, it does play some role, it is not a final factor. A female employee can work at a job for 2 months or 2 years and if there is sexual harassment or hostile work environment, and all the elements are satisfied, then that female employee could have a case.

For example, recently in Ohio, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a case where the lower district court had thrown it out. The facts are as follows. In 2002, a female person went to a company for a job and was hired as a transportation sale representative. During a four (4) month employment with this company she was subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. The work atmosphere was that of a “guy locker room”. Foul language was prevalent everywhere. The mostly male workers called co-workers bitches, whores, sluts, dykes and cunts. Sexually explicit pictures where on some of the computers. Pornographic magazines were lying open on desks. Co- workers brought in nude pictures of their girlfriends. Male co-workers traded sexual jokes and engaged in graphic discussions about their sexual liaisons. Beer was drank in the office on Fridays. On Saturdays, guys came into work without their shirt on. Some of the employees called the female employee a “heifer” with “milking udders” or “moo’ed” when she walked by. Anal sex was discussed. The company did have a policy of reporting sexual harassment complaints to the legal department, but the female employee did not do this, but did tell her boss. Also, there was a 1-800 number to call, but she did not use this either in that she was told that anyone who did use it was usually fired shortly thereafter. Anytime she told her boss about the goings on, he would yell at whoever was doing it to stop and they would. (This was not enough says this Louisville sexual harassment attorney).

To establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment based on hostile work environment, the female employee must adduce evidence demonstrating that 1, she is a member of a protected class, 2, she was subjected to harassment, either through words or actions, based on sex, 3, the harassment had the effect of unreasonably interfering with her work performance and creating an objectively intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment, and 4, there exists some basis for liability on the part of the employer. The District (trial) Court, did not find that the female plaintiff satisfied these elements. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed saying that the female plaintiff had and remanded the case back to be tried. Without getting into it, basically the U.S. Court of Appeals said to the lower court that it got it all wrong and sent the case back to be tried. The U.S. Court of Appeals said that 1, the female employee was a protected person, 2, the words used were explicitly sexual and patently degrading of women. The natural effect of exposure to such offensive conduct is embarrassment, humiliation and degradation, irrespective of the harasser’s motivation especially and all the more so if the captive recipient of the harassment is a woman, 3, that even though the female plaintiff did finish her work, a reasonably jury could certainly find that the complained of harassment made it more difficult to do her job and that satisfied this element, and finally 4, that because her supervisor knew what was going on, that that could be inferred to the company under vicarious liability and hold them accountable (ie. Giving them notice of what was going on). (See Gallaher v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 567 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2009)).

If you have been the subject of sexual harassment or a hostile work environment discrimination, please call and speak to a Louisville sexual harassment attorney at the Law Offices of Andrew S. Alitowski at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637) or contact us online. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!

In Kentucky, the Court of Appeals ruled recently in a Kentucky personal injury case that a Plaintiff did not have a case for which he was injured. The facts of the case are very interesting. Jerry and Marilyn Sadler sued J.A.M. Co. Restaurants for personal injuries that they received on May 18, 2006. On that evening, they went to an Arby’s restaurant for dinner. Approximately 100 feet away there was a Movie Gallery movie rental store. The two businesses were owned by different owners. When the Sadlers got the restaurant the weather was ok, but then it got dark outside and windy and debris started to fly around. The roof of the Movie Gallery broke loose and flew toward the Arby’s restaurant. The Sadlers were seated by the window in a booth. When the Sadlers saw the roof coming at them, they got away from the window. The roof hit the window and debris flew everywhere and the Sadlers were knocked to the floor. As a result of the personal injury accident, Marilyn suffered numerous cuts to her body. Jerry suffered a fractured right arm and cuts.

On May 15, 2007, the Sadlers filed their Kentucky personal injury lawsuit. On October 13, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the case be thrown out in that they stated there was no cause of action or theory of recovery that would allow the Sadlers to maintain their lawsuit. As discovery was still going on, the Court denied the motion on October 23, 2007 as premature. But, then on April 8, 2008, 6 months later, the defense filed a renewed motion for summary judgment after deposing the Sadlers arguing that there was no theory of negligence upon which the Sadlers could prevail at trial since the defendant did not own the Movie Gallery building and the Sadlers could not produce any evidence of negligence on its part. The Sadlers responded that the defendant could still be negligent because the construction of their store could have been faulty or not done in a safe manner. But they did not produce any evidence of this exepct for their affidavits which were of their own belief.

On May 21, 2008, the trial court entered an order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and in essence throwing out the plaintiffs’ personal injury case. Summary judgment in a Kentucky personal injury case is appropriate only when “it appears that it would be impossible for the respondent to produce evidence at the trial warranting a judgment in his favor.” Id. In this case, the court found that the defendant did produce an affidavit that clearly stated it did nothing wrong and had no ownership of the other building. The plaintiffs responded with only their affidavit and nothing more from any expert. Thus, the appeals court ruled that the lower court’s ruling of dismissing the case was proper and valid.

If you have been the subject of a personal injury case, please call and speak to a personal injury lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew S. Alitowski at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637) or contact us online. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!

As the 2009 year comes to an end, I would just like to thank all of my clients that I have helped in this past year and in years past. As a Louisville Personal Injury Car Accident Lawyer, it has been my privilege to assist the numerous friends and families that I have come across. I am very happy that I am able to assist those families that do not speak English and only speak Spanish, in that I know speaking to them in their native language makes a Louisville car accident that much easier to deal with.

Louisville Personal Injury Car Accident Lawyer Andrew S. Alitowski is available to speak and meet with any potential client 24/7. My law firm direct number goes straight to my cell phone after regular working hours so that I do not miss a call. A Louisville car accident does not just happen between the hours of 9 to 5. Thus, if you or a family member or friend are injured at anytime during the day or night, all you have to do is call 582-9100 or the 888-275-2637 number and I will be able to assist you with any Louisville car accident question that you may have.

I do wish everyone a happy and healthy holiday season. I hope that every remembers to be safe on the roads when driving home, not just from your party, but also to drive a little more defensively in that others too are coming from their parties and may not be as safety conscious as you may be while they are driving down the roads. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Also remember that the roadways may be slick from ice or snow and that there can be "black ice" on the roadways.

I look forward being able to serve you, a family member or friend in the near future if the situation arises. I enjoy being a Louisville Personal Injury Car Accident Lawyer and wish you all a wonderful 2010.

Continue reading " Louisville Personal Injury Car Accident Information " »

Yesterday in Kentucky, a young gentleman was killed in a car accident after his car struck a tree on Cedar Point Road in the Buckner area. (Please see article). His passenger was taken to University Hospital with serious injuries.

It is alleged that the car lost control and struck a tree. The reason this is important to a Kentucky Car Accident attorney is that to qualify for uninsured motorist coverage in Kentucky, there has to be a touching involved between this vehicle and another. The news report "claims" that the vehicle lost control. But, what if that is not the case? What if the vehicle was actually side-swiped? Or hit in the rear? Without talking to the passenger or a reliable witness, a Kentucky Car Accident attorney cannot rule these things out.

Continue reading " Kentucky Car Accident Attorney " »