Posted On: April 28, 2010

Louisville, Kentucky Carbon Monoxide Furnace Case.

In March of 2010, the Kentucky Court of Appeals heard a case that involved a personal injury matter with reference to carbon monoxide. (See Salsman v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 2010 WL 918068 (Ky.App.) In Salsman, the Salsman family in 1997 had a Kenmore Series 90 gas fired furnace installed in their basement and was installed by Crain heating & Air conditioning who had subcontracted the job from Sears. Id. The installation was inspected by Defendant Richard Howlett, an inspector with the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government Department of Inspection on or about April 8, 1997. Id.

At some point after, the entire Salsman family started to get sick. One of the family members in 2003, was placed on Social Security and considered disabled due to destructive apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary artery disease. Id. None of the Plaintiffs ever suspected it was the furnace. Id.

In January of 2007, the furnace stopped working and the repair person told the Plaintiffs to get a state agency official to check it out because it did not appear to be installed correctly. At the end of January 2007, the furnace was inspected by the Commonwealth of Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, Office of Housing, Buildings and Construction. Id. The inspection revealed that the furnace had not been properly installed and that carbon monoxide gas had been leaking into the home for nearly 10 years. Id. On January 10, 2008, within 1 year of finding out about the carbon monoxide, the Plaintiffs hired a Louisville personal injury lawyer to assist them with their personal injury case. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss because they claimed that a one year statute of limitations applied from when they became sick and that pursuant to the Yanero case, that Howlett and the Metro Government were entitled to immunity. Id. The case at hand was another Louisville personal injury case that needed to be handled by a Louisville personal injury lawyer.

Continue reading " Louisville, Kentucky Carbon Monoxide Furnace Case. " »

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: April 21, 2010

Kentucky Personal Injury Nursing Home Case.

Louisville Personal Injury – Medical Malpractice Case Against Home Health Care Company and Nurse Case.

In October of 2007, Mr. Ira Eldridge was injured and required a catheter to be placed into his right atrium of his heart. (See Mary Breckinridge Healthcare, Inc. v. Eldridge, 275 S.W.3d 739 (Ky.App. 2008). In this case, a nurse Johnson made two visits to Mr. Eldridge’s home. The first at 10:20am where she changed the dressing of the catheter site but this time used scissors to assist. Id. During that visit a leak developed and medication dripped onto Plaintiff’s chest. Id. Plaintiff did call the home healthcare center back to report the leak and had Nurse Johnson come back out at about 4:35pm. Id. At this second visit, a witness Mr. Mullins testified that this time it seemed she was pulling and tugging on the catheter. Id. By the end of the visit, Nurse Johnson recommended that Plaintiff go to the hospital. Id. Plaintiff called his wife Sylvania to take him. Id. During this conversation Sylvania testified the he sounded nervous, had problems breathing and was coughing. Id. When she met him, Plaintiff looked scared, excited, and had trouble breathing. Id. During the ride, Plaintiff told Sylvania what had happened. Id.

Sylvania at trial testified as to what Plaintiff had said about Nurse Johnson trying to manipulate the catheter and so forth. Id. She also testified how she told the ER doctors what Plaintiff had told her. Id. Plaintiff died the next day. Id. The medical reports showed that the catheter was dislodged and ultimately found under the right clavicle instead of in the right atrium of the heart, with a crack in it. Id. Plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer was able to bring forward the testimony needed.

Continue reading " Kentucky Personal Injury Nursing Home Case. " »

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: April 16, 2010

Kentucky Slip and Fall in Neighboring Property Case

Issue: Were the owners of real property adjacent to land actually used for recreation liable to a woman who slip and fell in the parking lot after a fireworks display at the school when she slip and fell in the parking lot of the school?

In Mason v. Berea Independent School District Finance Corporation, (2007 WL 2998510 (Ky.App.), Ms. Mason had attended a fireworks display at the football stadium owned by the City of Berea in 2004. Parking was provided at the Berea Community School which is adjacent to the stadium. Id. No charge was required for either the fireworks or the parking. Id. After the fireworks on the way to her car, Plaintiff slip and fell in a storm drain marked by a brightly painted yellow curb in the parking lot of the school. Id. There were no prior notifications of a potential hazard regarding this area. Id. Plaintiff filed suit and the trial court dismissed the case pursuant to KRS 411.190. This Court of Appeals affirmed. The reasoning is as follows.

KRS 411.190 states in part that: 1(c) “Recreational purpose” includes things like boating, fishing, nature study, viewing or enjoying historical, archeological, scenic, or scientific sites… (2) The purpose of this section is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes…. (3) Except as specifically recognized by or provided by subsection (6) of this section, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure,… (4) … an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreation purposes does not thereby: (a) Extend any assurance that the premise are safe for any purpose; 2(b) Confer upon the person the legal status of an invitee or license to whom a duty of care is owed; or (c) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property cause by an act or omission of those persons.” Id. (This section would apply to a slip and fall case in Kentucky).

Continue reading " Kentucky Slip and Fall in Neighboring Property Case " »

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: April 15, 2010

Kentucky Lawsuit Against School Officials

Kentucky Personal Injury Case Update: Lawsuit Against School Officials

Issue: Was the bus driver liable for the sexual assault on his bus when he failed to keep an eye on the students and make sure they followed the rules of staying in their seats while he was driving the bus?

In Addison v. Green, 2009 WL 3486657 (Ky.App.), the Kentucky Court of Appeals said that he might be and did not grant the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment asking that the case against him be dismissed. The facts are as follows.

In September of 2003 a 17 year old boy sexually assaulted a five year old girl while they were riding on a school bus together. Id. In October of 2005, the parents for the girl filed a lawsuit against, the bus driver, Mr. Addison; the director of student transportation for the school system, Mr. Wilson; the principal, Mr. Adams; and the superintendent, Mr. Eakles. Id. In October of 2007, the Plaintiff added a Ms. Donna Monroe to the lawsuit. Id. She was the social worker who provided services to Mr. Oliver and based on the facts, Plaintiffs sought to hold her responsible as well. In April of 2008, the Plaintiff agreed to let out Mr. Wilson, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Eakles in they these parties had immunity. Id. But, the Plaintiffs argued that Mr. Addison and Ms. Monroe’s actions were ministerial rather than discretionary, thus exempting them from entitlement to immunity. Id.

During discovery, it was revealed that Mr. Oliver had a troubled childhood including a history of sexually inappropriate behavior. Id. He was treated at several medical facilities. Id.

The trial court held that the bus driver had a duty of prohibiting children on the bus from moving about while the bus was in motion and from talking to the driver while the bus was in motion. Id. The bus driver failed to enforce these rules, the duty to enforce these rules would likely be considered ministerial duties not involving the exercise of discretion. Id. Plaintiff alleges that but for the breach of these ministerial duties, the injury in this case would have been prevented. Id. The trial court agreed.

Continue reading " Kentucky Lawsuit Against School Officials " »

Bookmark and Share