Wales et al v. Farmers Stockyards, Inc.
Filing
159
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Abner Construction Company with respect to the issues of common law negligence and, thus, the remainder of Plaintiffs' claims against it. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 3/28/2016.(LC)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
ANTHONY WALES, SR. and
TONYA WALES, Individually
and as parents & guardians
of an unmarried infant,
Next Friend A.W., Jr.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FARMERS STOCKYARDS, INC., et
al.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Action No.
5:14-cv-394-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants.
***
***
***
This matter is before the Court upon Abner Construction
Company’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the issue of
common law negligence, [DE 153].
The Plaintiffs have filed a
response, [DE 155], and Abner Construction has filed a reply, [DE
157].
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Abner
Construction Company’s motion for summary judgment.
Abner Construction was brought into this case as a thirdparty defendant by Farmers Stockyards.
Farmers Stockyards alleged
that Abner was responsible for the construction of the walkway
from which A.W., Jr., allegedly fell and that Abner bore any
resulting
responsibility.
Approximately
one
year
later,
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding Abner as a defendant,
claiming negligence and negligence per se.1
Plaintiffs claim that
Farmers Stockyard and Abner Construction had a duty to “design and
construct
the
elevated
walkway
within
the
existing at the time of construction . . . .”
industry
standards
Further, Plaintiffs
allege, Abner had a duty “to design and construct the elevated
walkway in such a manner for the use anticipated by patrons of
Defendant.”
Abner claims the Court should grant summary judgment
in its favor because its “sole role” in this matter was to
construct the walkway and there is no evidence that it was done
negligently.
The Court is unable to identify any portion of the record
wherein Abner Construction denies that it designed the walkway at
issue.
Plaintiffs have offered evidence regarding three other
stockyards that were constructed in central Kentucky during the
same
time
period
as
Farmers
Stockyards,
which
all
contained
elevated walkways with safety features beyond those required by
the Kentucky Building Code.
Based on its complaint and its
response brief, it appears that Plaintiffs allege negligence under
a design defect theory.
To state a cause of action for negligence, Plaintiffs must
establish that Abner Construction owed them a duty, that Abner
breached that duty, and that there is a causal connection between
1
Because the negligence per se claim has been dismissed, the Court will discuss
the allegations only with respect to the common law negligence claim.
2
the breach of that duty and the injuries suffered.
See Lucas v.
Gateway v. Comm. Servs. Org., Inc., 343 S.W.3d 341, 343 (Ky. Ct.
App. 2011).
Plaintiffs rely on Saylor v. Hall, 497 S.W.2d 218
(Ky. 1973), for the proposition that Abner owed them a duty of
care under the circumstances.
however.
Saylor’s holding is very narrow,
It involved a child who was killed in his home when a
stone fireplace collapsed, crushing the child to death.
The
Kentucky Supreme Court limited its holding to the precise facts of
the case, finding that the builder of the home was subject to
liability to third parties for negligent construction.
224.
Id. at
Plaintiffs have provided no case law to persuade the Court
that Kentucky courts would extend a builder’s duty to all future
invitees in a public building.
Additionally, the Court notes, products liability theories do
not apply to Plaintiffs’ negligence claims under Kentucky law.
See Powell v. Tosh, 929 F. Supp. 2d 691, 712–15 (W.D. Ky. 2013)
(vacated in part on other grounds). Accordingly, recovery pursuant
to a theory of strict liability is unavailable.
See Radcliff
Homes, Inc. v. Stellwagen, 766 S.W.2d 63, 68–69 (Ky. Ct. App.
1989); KRS § 411.300.
Because there is no genuine issue of material fact with
respect to duty, an essential element of Plaintiffs’ common law
negligence claim, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor
of Abner Construction with respect to this claim.
3
The Court notes
that as Abner Construction failed to address Farmers Stockyards’
third-party indemnification claims against it, these claims remain
part of this action.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that summary judgment is GRANTED
in favor of Abner Construction Company with respect to the issue
of common law negligence and, thus, the remainder of Plaintiffs’
claims against it.
This the 28th day of March, 2016.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?