Comments for Kentucky Tort Journal

Comment on SCOKY Grants Discretionary Review in Case Creating New Duty on Landowners by Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeal’s Case Establishing Duty on Urban Land Owners « Kentucky Tort and Insurance Law Journal

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:20:35 +0000

[...] of Highways to inspect for dead or decaying trees on its property. You may recall my earlier post noting the grant of discretionary review after the Court of Appeals established a new duty on urban [...]

Comment on Court Upholds Denial of Coverage for Insured Due to Status of Injured Party by Supreme Court Minutes for May 22nd « Kentucky Tort and Insurance Law Journal

Fri, 23 May 2008 13:23:06 +0000

[...] review in the case of Condispoti v. First Financial Ins. Co, which I previously posted about, here. As you can tell from my previous post, I think this is a shame. I believe that the Court of [...]

Comment on Jefferson Circuit Judge Kathleen Voor Montano Passes Away. by Stephan

Stephan — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:12:50 +0000

Sad news. My daughter is a classmate of Therese at Mercy, and just called me sobbing with the news. Our prayers are with the Montano family and friends, of which there are many.

Comment on Welcome by Edward A. Brutscher

Edward A. Brutscher — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:14:21 +0000

Thanks, so much Mike. Your comments are appreciated and your support is always welcome. I figure I’ll do it at least as long as you do. That way, we can lose our minds together and be none the wiser!

Comment on Welcome by Michael Stevens

Michael Stevens — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:13:27 +0000

Good upgrade. Good content. Good domain name. Good heavens, it’s that good. Keep current and keep loggin’ and bloggin’. Your insights and analysis are needed.

Comment on Welcome by Edward A. Brutscher

Edward A. Brutscher — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:41:39 +0000

Thanks, Finis. The learning curve is steep, but it’s been entertaining!

Comment on Welcome by Finis Price

Finis Price — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:44:21 +0000

Great upgrade to your site Ed! I think it looks great and am quite impressed with it. Keep up the good work.

Comment on Supreme Court Requires Vertical Privity To Maintain Breach Of Implied Warranty Claim by Tennessee Lawyer

Tennessee Lawyer — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:26:00 +0000

very informative article.

Comment on Expert Testimony Required in Finger Surgery Resulting in Loose Teeth? by Kaye Miller, RN, CLNC

Kaye Miller, RN, CLNC — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:15:00 +0000

Good afternoon;

Careful review of the OR records should tell the story. Was the patient intubated? Not all precedures require intubation. Hopefully the OR circulating nurse was interviewed. There should be a pre-procedural assessment form and consent, signed by the patient, available. This seems like a no-brainer.

Kaye Miller, RN, CLNC

Comment on Immunity Rears Its Head, Again by jimmyshay

jimmyshay — Mon, 14 May 2007 14:52:00 +0000

i agree with your views on immunity. additionally, the Autrey decision is direct result of the confusion Justice Cooper injected in the immunity analysis by resurrected the governmental/proprietary distinction in the governmental immunity analyis.

In Autrey, the Court expressly held that providing housing is proprietary function when performed in the private sector, but it is governmental when provided by WKU, because WKU is required by statute to provide housing. In other words, under Autrey, the governmental/proprietary distinction now turns on whether the act is required by law. This holding threatens to bring almost all governmental acts by state agencies under the governmental immunity umbrella.