Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.410 (2026)
Repealed, effective January 1, 1973
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Catchline at repeal: Employer who fails to elect denied certain defenses at law. History: Repealed 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 78, sec. 36, effective January 1, 1973 . -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4960.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1943–1975 · leading case: Ward v. Marshall, 168 S.W.2d 348 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943).
Ward v. Marshall, 168 S.W.2d 348 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). “Were it not for the testimony as to the cant hook which Floyd said was furnished him, we would have no difficulty in disposing of the case on the motion of appellants for a directed verdict, even though they had elected not to operate under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.”
Crush v. Kaelin, 419 S.W.2d 142 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “KRS 342.410. Crush’s motions for a directed verdict and for a judgment n.”
Davis v. Turner, 519 S.W.2d 820 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975). “015, which conditioned the application of the entire workmen’s compensation law upon election by both employer and employe, and KRS 342.”
Amalgamated Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Rowe, 421 S.W.2d 364 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “KRS 342.410. Thus, the employer, here, who was not operating under the Workmen’s, Compensation Act, ran a considerable risk of being financially responsible to the employee if he were injured during the employment.”
Hodges v. Yarbro, 374 S.W.2d 845 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “Plaintiff sought to avoid this defense by introducing proof that defendants were eligible to operate under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (KRS 342.”
Skinner v. Smith, 255 S.W.2d 621 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). “KRS 342.410. The accident happened in this manner: Appellee, an experienced miner, was working in the mine with two other men.”
Louisville & Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Health v. Mulkins, 445 S.W.2d 849 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “The board of health could have elected to operate under the workmen’s compensation law, but had not, so under KRS 342.410 it was deprived of the defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of risk and negligence of a fellow servant.”
Croley v. Huddleston, 192 S.W.2d 717 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). “KRS 342.410. The evidence recited above supports the contention that appellant was negligent in furnishing appellee a defective and unsafe appliance with which to perform the duties required of him.”
Coburn v. North Am. Refractories Co., 174 S.W.2d 756 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). “4880, permitting employers engaged in certain industries to include the contracting of silicosis among the compensable injuries listed in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it was precluded from pleading “assumed risk” as a defense, but an inspection of the statute cited,, together…”
Gatliff Coal Co. v. Broyles' Adm'x., 180 S.W.2d 406 (Ky. Ct. App. 1944). “It is admitted (and which the statute, section 342.410 KB.S prescribes) that an employer eligible to operate under our Workmen’s Compensation Act who had not accepted it may not avail himself of contributory negligence of an injured employee in an action brought by the latter…”
Fitch v. Mayer, 258 S.W.2d 923 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). “At the top of the neck of the bo-wl there is a glass flange or rim.”
Elcomb Coal Co. v. Brock, 189 S.W.2d 397 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). “KRS 342.410; Harlan Central Coal Co. v. Gemmeno’s Adm’r.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.