Yellow Caution Sign Kentucky Accident Information has a new post discussing how businesses are still responsible for injuries when they misuse or overuse yellow caution signs to warn of dangers on their property.  The article discusses not only the misuse of yellow caution signs by businesses, but the habitual overuse of those same yellow caution signs when no danger is present.

The article goes in depth to identify the most common misuse or overuse mistakes that businesses make and how they attempt to avoid liability by misusing and overusing yellow caution signs.  It is a very interesting read and something every customer should keep in mind when they visit a business or commercial venue.  It is important to remember that the obligation businesses owe their customers extends beyond slapping a yellow caution sign up on the property in hopes to avoid injury.  Kentucky Accident Information explains the extent of that obligation and the steps customers can take to protect not only themselves but other customers as well.

 

Advertisements

RejectedThe Court of Appeals recently decided Houchens vs. GEICO, a case that questioned whether a reparations obligor in Kentucky is entitled to utilize “paper reviews,” which are not tendered to nor reviewed by a court, as the sole basis for terminating or denying an insured’s no-fault benefits (BRB’s).

Houchens contended that the only “medical review expressly sanctioned by Kentucky’s MVRA is contained in KRS 304.39-270 and requires court oversight.  GEICO, on the other hand, argues that the statutory language is purely permissive in nature, and that it has the discretion whether to utilize the statutory procedure or to seek its own paper review of an insured’s medical records.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Kentucky Court of Appeals

The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently published two cases dealing with apportionment involving third-party defendants that are of interest.

 

In the case of Memorial Sports Complex, LLC vs. McCormick, et al, the Court was required to determine whether the dismissal, but subsequent allowance of apportionment, of the third-party defendants was appropriate.  Memorial was sued after a minor (Mowery) suffered personal injury running into one of its fences during a baseball game.  Memorial filed a third-party complaint, seeking contribution, indemnity, and apportionment against McCormick, (Mowery’s Coach), Mowery’s father (Dale), and Geddes Fence Company (Geddes).

The trial court granted McCormick’s and Dale’s respective motions and dismissed Memorial’s third-party claims against them with prejudice in identical judgments, stating “Due to the applicability of apportionment of fault, as required in [Kentucky Revised Statutes] KRS 411.182, there is no right to contribution” and “indemnity is not appropriate as the kind of fault alleged by Plaintiff Mowery against Memorial Sports Complex, LLC is that it created and/or maintained the hazard that was the alleged cause of Mr. Mowery’s claimed injuries.”  The final judgments contained language that; “This dismissal will not prevent Third-Party Plaintiff [Memorial] from seeking an apportionment instruction relevant to the claims against it to the extent that any fault can be proved against the now
dismissed Third-Party Defendant[s][.]”  Geddes moved for summary judgment which was granted by the trial court, dismissing Memorial’s claims “with prejudice, as a matter of law, subject to apportionment in Plaintiff’s [Mowery’s] claim against Memorial.”  Memorial appealed both rulings.

Read the rest of this entry »