Court of Appeals Summary Decisions of the Month:
Libel and slander.
National College of Kentucky, Inc. v. WAVE Holdings, LLC
The Court of Appeals affirmed a grant of summary judgment which found that appellees did not defame National College of Kentucky, Inc. National College is a for-profit college which sued a Louisville news station, a news reporter, and a former student for defamation based on statements made in two news reports. The Court held that the statements were either true or protected opinion; therefore, they were not actionable as defamation
Attorney-client. Legal Malpractice. Action Within an Action.
Kendall v. Godbey
In a legal malpractice action, appellant challenged the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees. Appellant maintained that appellees committed legal malpractice by missing the statute of limitations while representing her in a negligence action. The facts of the underlying case centered on the rape of appellant by a taxi cab driver. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees on the grounds that appellant would not have been successful in her negligent hiring and retention action because the taxi driver’s sexual assault was not foreseeable by the cab company and, therefore, it would not have been liable for the driver’s actions. As a result, appellant would be unable to succeed in the legal malpractice action. The Court disagreed with both the circuit court and appellees that the cab company owed no duty to appellant. Notwithstanding the requirements for the establishment of duty in negligent hiring and retention cases, in this case the universal duty of care overrode any foreseeability analysis, and the cab company had a duty to its passengers. Since the Court held that the cab company had a duty to its passengers, whether the cab company breached that duty was a question of fact for the jury. The Court further recognized that the common carrier standard of care is still operative law in Kentucky. The common carrier standard of care mandates that a common carrier owes the highest degree of care in transporting passengers. Since a material issue of fact existed as to whether the cab company was liable, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. If the cab company was negligent, appellees may be liable for legal malpractice since the underlying action was not filed before the applicable statute of limitations ran out.
*******************
Here are individual summaries prepared by the AOC organized by legal topics this months PUBLISHED decisions only.
For a list of all archived monthly summaries, please click here for those at the AOC web site and click here for those posted here on this blog.
Please note some of these published decisions may have pending motions for discretionary review so you are cautioned to confirm finality of disposition by going to the AOC’s web site.
