14 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2025 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pathways, Inc. v. Hammonsgreen2 sentences2025A. The Individual Appellees The sole argument that the Appellants advance on appeal regarding Pitt and Noyes is that they “voluntarily assumed responsibility for finding a place for [Wardrip] to sleep after the party.” Under Kentucky law, a plaintiff must prove the following to establish a prima facie negligence claim: “(1) the defendant owed the [Appellants] a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached the standard by which his or her duty is measured, and (3) consequent injury.” Pathways, Inc. v. Hammons, 113 S.W.3d 85, 88 (Ky. 2003) (citations omitted). 2024Under Kentucky law, a plaintiff must prove the following to establish a prima facie negligence claim: “(1) the defendant owed the [Appellants] a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached the standard by which his or her duty is measured, and (3) consequent injury.” Pathways, Inc. v. Hammons, 113 S.W.3d 85, 88 (Ky. 2003) (citations omitted). | 10 | 10 |
Mullins v. Commonwealth Life Insurance Co.green2 sentences2022Duty, the first element, presents a question of law.” Pathways, Inc. v. Hammons, 113 S.W.3d 85, 88-89 (Ky. 2003) (citing Mullins v. Commonwealth Life Insurance Co., 839 S.W.2d 245, 247-48 (Ky. 1992)). 2003Mullins v. Commonwealth Life Insurance Co., Ky., 839 S.W.2d 245, 247 (1992), citing Illinois Central R.R. v. Vincent, Ky., 412 S.W.2d 874, 876 (1967). | 2 | 2 |
Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc.green1 sentence2024As the Kentucky Supreme Court discussed, “Kentucky law remains steadfast in its adherence to the traditional notion that duty is associated with the status of the injured party as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser.” Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc., Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901, 909 (Ky. 2013) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Grubbs Ex Rel. Grubbs v. Barbourville Family Health Center, P.S.C.green1 sentence2022Grubbs v. Barbourville Family Health Care, P.S.C., 120 S.W.3d 682, 693 (Ky. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. Fuel Transport, Inc.green1 sentence2021By contrast, a gross negligence claim has only two elements: (1) “a finding of failure to exercise reasonable care” and (2) “an additional finding that this negligence was accompanied by wanton or reckless disregard for the lives, safety, or property of others.” Gibson v. Fuel Transp., Inc., 410 S.W.3d 56, 59 (Ky. 2013) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Illinois Central Railroad v. Vincentgreen2 sentences2003Mullins v. Commonwealth Life Insurance Co., Ky., 839 S.W.2d 245, 247 (1992), citing Illinois Central R.R. v. Vincent, Ky., 412 S.W.2d 874, 876 (1967). 2003Mullins v. Commonwealth Life Insurance Co., Ky., 839 S.W.2d 245, 247 (1992), citing Illinois Central R.R. v. Vincent, Ky., 412 S.W.2d 874, 876 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hammons v. Hammons
green
1 sentence2022ANALYSIS In any negligence case, the plaintiff must prove the following elements in order to prevail over the defendant: “(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached the standard by which his or her duty is measured, and (3) consequent injury.”6 A negligence claim brought under a theory of premises liability asserts that a land possessor has violated his duty to maintain his premises in a reasonably safe manner.7 Historically, the scope of the duty owed by a land possessor was dependent upon the status of one claiming injury as either a trespasser, a license | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ireland v. Raymond
green
1 sentence2012McDonald, 447 S.W.2d 84 ; Ireland, 796 S.W.2d 870 . 17 In the present case there is no genuine issue of material fact that the landlords knew, or should have known, of the dangerous propensities of their tenants’ dog; and, the attack took place off the landlords’ property. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
McDonald v. Talbott
green
1 sentence2012McDonald, 447 S.W.2d 84 ; Ireland, 796 S.W.2d 870 . 17 In the present case there is no genuine issue of material fact that the landlords knew, or should have known, of the dangerous propensities of their tenants’ dog; and, the attack took place off the landlords’ property. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.