9 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc.green2 sentences2023Id. at 914 (citation omitted) (“[T]he foreseeability of the risk of harm should be a question normally left to the jury under the breach analysis.”). 2014Furthermore, under the foreseeability factors adopted from the Restatement in Shelton, 413 S.W.3d at 914 , a reasonable mind could find that it should have been foreseeable to Circle K that invitees who regularly parked in the rear of the store would continue to do so and would choose to encounter the risk of slipping and falling on the ice in exchange for the advantages of making purchases from the store. | 1 | 3 |
Pathways, Inc. v. Hammonsgreen1 sentence2024“Foreseeable risks are determined in part on what the defendant knew at the time of the alleged negligence.” Pathways, Inc. v. Hammons, 113 S.W.3d 85, 90 (Ky. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Bullitt Host, LLCgreen1 sentence2017Since Shelton, it will always be answered in the affirmative because the Kentucky Supreme Court has—or at least most certainly appears to have—fully embraced the universal duty of care concept of the dissenting opinion in Palsgraf 5 that for nearly a century Kentucky rejected, following instead the relational concept of duty, informed by a foreseeability analysis, that Judge Cardoza articulated in that case’s majority opinion. 6 Removing foreseeability from the duty analysis effectively makes establishing the duty element of a tort claim a fait accom-pli In fact, “the concept of duty itself is | 1 | 1 |
Grisham v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green1 sentence2009In Napper “[t]he court employed a foreseeability test in examining whether the owner was under a duty to protect a patron from an attack by another patron.” Grisham, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 929 F.Supp. 1054, 1057 (E.D.Ky.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Joe James v. Meow Media, Inc.green1 sentence2007The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300 F.3d 683, 691-92 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1159 , 123 S.Ct. 967 , 154 L.Ed.2d 893 (2003), recently interpreted Kentucky law on this point: *218 The parties in this case have argued at length over whether the foreseeability inquiry required to determine the existence of a duty of care is a pure question of law for the court or a question of fact that should generally be submitted to a jury. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kendall v. Godbey
green
1 sentence2018In Kendall v. Godbey , 537 S.W.3d 326 , 331-32 (Ky. App. 2017), this Court held that Shelton embraced the universal duty of care concept rather than the foreseeability analysis. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
James Graham Brown Foundation, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2008Id. at 279 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Coleman v. Simpson, Trustee
green
1 sentence2007The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300 F.3d 683, 691-92 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1159 , 123 S.Ct. 967 , 154 L.Ed.2d 893 (2003), recently interpreted Kentucky law on this point: *218 The parties in this case have argued at length over whether the foreseeability inquiry required to determine the existence of a duty of care is a pure question of law for the court or a question of fact that should generally be submitted to a jury. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
James v. Meow Media, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300 F.3d 683, 691-92 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1159 , 123 S.Ct. 967 , 154 L.Ed.2d 893 (2003), recently interpreted Kentucky law on this point: *218 The parties in this case have argued at length over whether the foreseeability inquiry required to determine the existence of a duty of care is a pure question of law for the court or a question of fact that should generally be submitted to a jury. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Coleman v. Simpson
green
1 sentence2007The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300 F.3d 683, 691-92 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1159 , 123 S.Ct. 967 , 154 L.Ed.2d 893 (2003), recently interpreted Kentucky law on this point: *218 The parties in this case have argued at length over whether the foreseeability inquiry required to determine the existence of a duty of care is a pure question of law for the court or a question of fact that should generally be submitted to a jury. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mullins v. Commonwealth Life Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2007(Footnotes omitted.) By placing the determination as to the existence of a duty in the province of the court, Kentucky has made the duty of care a “policy determination.” Mullins, supra, at 248 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.