others.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
defendant is a parent, guardian, or other person entrusted with the care and
supervision of a minor or an incompetent person or when the defendant is a teacher
or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor, for a special
purpose, and:
(a) The defendant believes that the force used is necessary to promote the welfare
of a minor or mentally disabled person or, if the defendant's responsibility for
the minor or mentally disabled person is for a special purpose, to further that
special purpose or maintain reasonable discipline in a school, class, or other
group; and
(b) The force that is used is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial
risk of causing death, serious physical injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, or
extreme mental distress.
(2) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
defendant is a warden or other authorized official of a correctional institution, and:
(a) The defendant believes that the force used is necessary for the purpose of
enforcing the lawful rules of the institution;
(b) The degree of force used is not forbidden by any statute governing the
administration of the institution; and
(c) If deadly force is used, its use is otherwise justifiable under this code.
(3) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
defendant is a person responsible for the operation of or the maintenance of order in
a vehicle or other carrier of passengers and the defendant believes that such force is
necessary to prevent interference with its operation or to maintain order in the
vehicle or other carrier, except that deadly physical force may be used only when
the defendant believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
(4) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
defendant is a doctor or other therapist or a person assisting him at his direction,
and:
(a) The force is used for the purpose of administering a recognized form of
treatment which the defendant believes to be adapted to promoting the
physical or mental health of the patient; and
(b) The treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient
is a minor or a mentally disabled person, with the consent of the parent,
guardian, or other person legally competent to consent in his behalf, or the
treatment is administered in an emergency when the defendant believes that
no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person,
wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent.
Effective: July 1, 1982
History: Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 135, effective July 1, 1982. -- Created
1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 36, effective January 1, 1975.
Note: 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396, sec. 147 would have amended this section effective
July 1, 1982. However, 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396 was repealed by 1982 Ky. Acts ch.
141, sec. 146, also effective July 1, 1982.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case:
Degolia v. Kenton Cnty., 381 F. Supp. 3d 740 (E.D. Ky. 2019).
Degolia v. Kenton Cnty., 381 F. Supp. 3d 740 (E.D. Ky. 2019).
· cites it 4× “In relevant part, KRS § 503.110 further provides that: The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant is a warden or other authorized official of a correctional institution, and: (a) The defendant believes that the force used is…”
Jacob Clark v. Bernadette Stone, 998 F.3d 287 (6th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 3× “KRS §503.110 specifically provides that parents may use physical force when disciplining their children.”
Stoker v. Commonwealth, 828 S.W.2d 619 (Ky. 1992).
· cites it 7× “[2] See KRS 503.110 on the "use of force by [a] person with responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others.”
Pollini v. Commonwealth, 172 S.W.3d 418 (Ky. 2005).
· cites it 2× “100; or force used by a parent, guardian, teacher, official at a correctional institution, operator of a common carrier vehicle, doctor, or other therapist under circumstances specified in KRS 503.110. When there is evidence of such an exception to the privilege to act in…”
Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cnty. v. Hurley-Richards, 396 S.W.3d 879 (Ky. 2013).
· cites it 3× “” Specifically, Appellants contend that: 1) whether conduct constitutes “conduct unbecoming a teacher” is exclusively a question for the hearing Tribunal; 2) the circuit court misinterpreted the Tribunal’s findings of fact and applied its own judgment to conclude that Richards’…”
Hayes v. Commonwealth, 870 S.W.2d 786 (Ky. 1994).
· cites it 2× “050 to KRS 503.110, none of which is applicable here.”
Staples v. Commonwealth, 454 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2014).
“But, significantly, KRS 503.110 states in relevant part that a parent is justified in using such force as the parent believes is “necessary to promote the welfare of a minor,” provided, however, that the force used “is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk…”
Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 32 N.E.3d 861 (Mass. 2015).
“4 See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 503.110 (exempting force “designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious physical injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, or extreme mental distress”); Neb.”
Lockard v. State, 600 N.E.2d 985 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).
“17 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 503.110 (Baldwin 1990).”
Holbrook v. Commonwealth, 925 S.W.2d 191 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 3× “” KRS 503.110. The privilege to use force is unavailable as a defense if the teacher is “wanton or reckless in believing the use of any force, or the degree of force used, to be necessary-” KRS 503.”
Kohlheim v. Commonwealth, 618 S.W.2d 591 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981).
“110, requires us to construe it to mean that the justification afforded by these latter sections is unavailable when he wantonly or recklessly injures or creates a risk of injury to innocent persons. It is not disputed that Pam Felker was an innocent person at the time of the…”
Clark v. Stone (W.D. Ky. 2020).
· cites it 4× “KRS § 503.110 provides that parents may use physical force on their children if they believe “the force used is necessary to promote the welfare of a minor” and “[t]he force that is used is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.110(1) — 4 cases
Jacob Clark v. Bernadette Stone, 998 F.3d 287 (6th Cir. 2021).
“KRS §503.110 specifically provides that parents may use physical force when disciplining their children.”
Stoker v. Commonwealth, 828 S.W.2d 619 (Ky. 1992).
“[2] See KRS 503.110 on the "use of force by [a] person with responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others.”
Holbrook v. Commonwealth, 925 S.W.2d 191 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996).
“” KRS 503.110. The privilege to use force is unavailable as a defense if the teacher is “wanton or reckless in believing the use of any force, or the degree of force used, to be necessary-” KRS 503.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.110(1)(a) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.110(1)(b) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.110(2) — 1 case
Degolia v. Kenton Cnty., 381 F. Supp. 3d 740 (E.D. Ky. 2019).
“In relevant part, KRS § 503.110 further provides that: The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant is a warden or other authorized official of a correctional institution, and: (a) The defendant believes that the force used is…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.110(2)(a) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.110(l)(a) — 1 case
Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cnty. v. Hurley-Richards, 396 S.W.3d 879 (Ky. 2013).
“” Specifically, Appellants contend that: 1) whether conduct constitutes “conduct unbecoming a teacher” is exclusively a question for the hearing Tribunal; 2) the circuit court misinterpreted the Tribunal’s findings of fact and applied its own judgment to conclude that Richards’…”
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.