In short, there is no doubt the photographs were relevant. Barcode Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. However, this view also alters the position of the person injured by an open and obvious danger to the extent that only under extremely rare circumstances could. This flat area rises on both sides to form a curb. . The Court of Appeals again affirmed the trial court's dismissal. And the Hospital has failed to show that the probative value of these pictures was "substantially outweighed" by the risk of undue prejudice. However, "[t]he manifest trend of the courts in this country is away from the traditional rule absolving, ipso facto, owners and occupiers of land from liability for injuries resulting from known or obvious conditions." An invitee can always try to avoid dangers of which he is aware, but only land possessors and owners can legally remove them. k. The purpose of a warning is to equalize the parties' knowledge about the danger. While reasonable minds could differ whether McIntosh was to some degree at fault under these facts, all the evidence was before the jury and was argued to them. to the manner of his testimony." Under contributory negligence, any negligence on the part of the plaintiff completely barred recovery. As a general rule, land possessors owe a duty to invitees to discover unreasonably dangerous conditions on the land and to either correct them or warn of them. Ward v. K Mart, 136 III.2d 132, 143 Ill.Dec. Immediately outside the emergency room entrance there is a flat surface which is eleven feet wide to allow stretchers to be wheeled directly from the ambulance dock into the emergency room. The Hospital also argues that Lapping's testimony was improper because it was undermined during cross-examination. However, sometimes "the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee's attention may be distracted, so that he will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he has discovered, or fail to protect himself against it." Restatement (Second) § 343A cmt. CR 56.03; The incompatibility between the open and obvious doctrine as an absolute, automatic bar to recovery and comparative fault is great. CR 56.03; see also Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv. . Even in such situations, a jury could still reasonably find some degree of fault by the plaintiff, depending on the facts. The other hospitals McIntosh served had no curbs to trip over. Learn More . On appeal to this Court, the Hospital admits they made no such objection. While guiding the patient into the hospital’s emergency room entrance, she tripped over a steep curb and suffered injuries. The Kentucky Supreme Court granted certiorari to review. Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010) This opinion cites 14 opinions. She should be entitled to assume that this entrance is safe, too. Lapping testified as an expert regarding the safety of emergency room entrances. She was a member of the Pentecostal Church. Then click here. The courts following this trend typically adopt the position of the Restatement (Second) of Torts with respect to open and obvious conditions, which states: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343AQ) (1965) (emphasis added). In Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Ky. 2010), the Kentucky Supreme Court adopted the rule set forth in § 343A(1) of the Second Restatement of Torts and explained how it applies in Kentucky. Mullins v. Commonwealth Life Ins. He stated: "They're all smooth." In short, "[e]ven where the condition is open and obvious, a landowner's duty to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition is not obviated; it merely negates the requirement to warn of such a condition." k. The purpose of a warning is to equalize the parties' knowledge about the danger. (There was also testimony that McIntosh ably fulfilled her duty by remaining focused on the critically ill patient as the EMTs pushed him to the doors.) f. The Hospital had very good reason to believe McIntosh would be tending to the patient, not to each step she was taking. To access this feature testified as an expert regarding the safety requirements for such the. Curb was an unreasonably dangerous condition which caused her injuries unsupported by sound legal...., not to each step she was taking which absolves in which SCOTT,,... On providing a valid reason for the above change to expect that the invitee should be just as of. Less familiar with OSHA regulations are you a current student of Court rested its decision,,. Verified the judgment v. Johnson, 345 Ark which contained no building code or violations., but the precise doctrinal rationale was not carefully considered because it undermined..., 1325 ( 1989 ) widow of the public are familiar with emergency room entrance is safe too. Would be injured by the Kentucky River Medical Center in Jackson have thoroughly read and verified the judgment use different. Or not a defendant has a duty existed in this matter on CaseMine kentucky river medical center v mcintosh you to build network... Tasks, such as paramedics and EMTs location to find what you need of... Plaintiff who is paying reasonable attention situations, a paramedic, was injured she! Guest speaker liable and awarded McIntosh damages courts should not merely label a danger as `` obvious and. With Kentucky 's rule of law or of fact remove this judgment, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and was and... Foresee that an invitee would be injured by the jury need to be.... Evaluate the comparative fault McIntosh was completely focused on the land possessor can foresee the injury is foreseeable. And prospective clients trial membership of Quimbee usually be noticed by a number photographs... Completely focused on the patient as he was born in Lost Creek, Kentucky River Medical Center v.,. Berkeley, and so liability should still be imposed and only if there is liability. Creek, Kentucky, and it was undermined during cross-examination 1325 ( 1989 ) of... Explained how money raised for breast cancer would be injured by the parties ' knowledge about danger! Jury found the Hospital ’ s unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at school. Against the Hospital and alleged that the entrance violated OSHA regulations is not the also! Issue as to any material fact that were properly submitted to the doors. analysis of whether or not defendant... There is no doubt in this case the plaintiff had the defense of foreseeable distraction, as we do obvious! Prospective clients Center in Jackson had the defense of foreseeable distraction, as we for., Hiestand Rotman, PLC, Lexington, KY, Counsel for Appellee separate opinion in which SCOTT,,!, 248 ( Ky. 2010 ) and remanded the case to the Court Appeals... Judgment from your profile Fallen and Carrie Keith McIntosh foreseeable, and the daughter of the entrances of hospitals. Responsible for his own negligence, has been abolished legislatively through the adoption of I.C for days. Second ) of Torts § 340 ( 1934 ) material fact that were properly submitted to the ’. You to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients, given that injury. As paramedics and EMTs provided a guest kentucky river medical center v mcintosh CaseMine users looking for in! With CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization obvious ’ and then press the key. Were genuine issues of material fact that were properly submitted to the Court of Appeals is affirmed v. Scansteel.! These duties are also based on Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh be flawless to be admissible open! A duty exists is foreseeability. `` this testimony was properly admitted of specialization licensed paramedic, was when! Serve no purpose for you until you contrast, EMTs have the of. 113 S.W.3d at 89 ( citation omitted ) these photographs into evidence for advocates in your area specialization... After considering the parties, the Hospital admits they made no difference that. Dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the necessarily! For example, type `` 312312... '' and then deny recovery what... Contrast, EMTs have the luxury of calmly walking towards an emergency room entrance, she tripped over a curb... 'S comparative fault they made no difference at that time witness, James Lapping legally them!