Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 454.040 (2026)
Trespass, joint or several damages for
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In actions of trespass the jury may assess joint or several damages against the defendants. When the jury finds several damages, the judgment shall be in favor of the plaintiff against each defendant for the several damages, without regard to the amount of damages claimed in the petition, and shall include a joint judgment for the costs. Effective: October 1, 1942 History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 12.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases, 1949–2016 · leading case: Prudential Life Ins. Co. v. Moody, 696 S.W.2d 503 (Ky. 1985).
Prudential Life Ins. Co. v. Moody, 696 S.W.2d 503 (Ky. 1985). “The apportionment of liability among joint tortfeasors is statutory, contained in KRS 454.040, which provides: In actions of trespass the jury may assess joint or several damages against the defendants.”
Floyd v. Carlisle Const. Co., Inc., 758 S.W.2d 430 (Ky. 1988). “2d 59 (1970) derives from a statute (KRS 454.040) which cannot fairly be construed that liberally.”
Ohio River Pipeline Corp. v. Landrum, 580 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979). “On appeal, Ohio River Pipeline asserts that the trial court erred in holding the defendants liable only for “several damages” under KRS 454.040 rather than jointly liable for the entire amount of the judgment.”
Stratton v. Parker, 793 S.W.2d 817 (Ky. 1990). “"It is suggested that the proper relationship between KRS 454.040 and KRS 412.030 is that as to the plaintiff the recovery is joint but as between the defendants it is according to the apportionment fixed by the jury.”
Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. 1984). “320 which provides that contributory negligence is a defense to a product liability action; and (3) KRS 277.320 which adopts comparative negligence as the rule for railroad employees in actions against their employers, extending the same provision as found in the Federal…”
Degener v. Hall Contracting Corp., 27 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. 2000). “Kentucky has three statutes applicable to claims against or between joint tortfeasors, viz: KRS 454.040, KRS 412.030, and KRS 411.182.”
Morgan v. Scott, 291 S.W.3d 622 (Ky. 2009). “Moody, [18] a decision premised on KRS 454.040, the statute that allows juries to assess joint or several damages against multiple defendants.”
Dix & Assocs. Pipeline Contractors, Inc. v. Key, 799 S.W.2d 24 (Ky. 1990). “Like apportionment of liability under KRS 454.040, contribution is concerned with the distribution of loss among joint tort-feasors.”
Burke Enter., Inc. v. Mitchell, 700 S.W.2d 789 (Ky. 1985). “KRS 454.040, the statute which permits (but does not require) the jury to apportion its verdict among the parties' defendant on trial, was applied by analogy, while conceding that the words of the statute had no expressed application to this state of facts.”
Cox v. Cooper, 510 S.W.2d 530 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974). “KRS 454.040 provides as follows: “In actions of trespass the jury may assess joint or several damages against the defendants.”
Young v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 781 S.W.2d 503 (Ky. 1989). “We held that apportionment as authorized by KRS 454.040 had to have some rational basis, not simply dollar amounts, and that the use of percentages was proper.”
Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Rice, 775 S.W.2d 924 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989). “The fact that Ingersoll-Rand is not entitled to an instruction on Jackson Drilling Company’s duties as an employer does not negate this element of Ingersoll-Rand’s defense.”
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.