Third Boone Courts Courthouse. Built in 1981 as the Justice Center and became the Administration Building in 2003 when the current Justice Center was built. Image courtesy of www.CourtHouseHistory.com.
There were only two tort-related issues this week, both published. In Pearson v. Pearson, the Court of Appeals addressed an interesting spouse vs. spouse case arising from the wife’s placement of an automatic air freshener at face-height above the toilet without telling her husband who got a surprise spurt in the face. In Gonzalez, Adm’or of Est. of Luis J. Gonzalez v. Johnson, the COA reluctantly affirmed a police chase case resulting in the death of a third party but no proximate cause.
PUBLISHED DECISIONS:
239, Zoning.
City of Richmond v. Spangler Apartments LLC
Madison.
Reversed and remanded partial summary judgment granted to apartment owner and held held the real property at issues was not subject to land use restriction on multifamily development.
242. Torts. Spouse vs. Spouse. Forseeability for harm caused by air freshener.
Pearson v. Pearson
Reversing and Remanding. Jefferson.
Trial judge erred on duty and foreseseeability of harm in granting summary judgement dismissing husband’s claims against his wife who had placed unbeknownst to him an automatic air freshener sprayer above toilet which went off in his face causing asthmatic bronchitis exacerbated by chemical exposure in spouse.
245. Proximate cause and police liability in chase.
Gonzalez, Adm’or of Est. of Luis J. Gonzalez v. Johnson
Affirming. Fayette.
THOMPSON, JUDGE: The primary issue presented in this appeal is straightforward: Did the trial court err when it ruled that police officers could not be liable for the death of Luis Gonzalez after a fleeing suspect crashed into the vehicle occupied by Gonzalez because the officers’ actions were not the proximate cause of his death? In resolving the issue, we are urged to depart from the precedent in Chambers v. Ideal Pure Milk Co., 245 S.W.2d 589 (Ky. 1952), and follow the emerging trend to permit such actions to proceed for a factual determination as to the officers’ liability. Because this Court is bound to follow Supreme Court precedent, we reluctantly affirm.
Selected cases that were not designated for publication in tort, insurance and civil law.
None,
******************
You will find the complete list of this week’s decisions below with number, names of parties, case number, lower court (eg., county), etc. with a hot link to the full text of the decision. Please note that you will have to check Case Information for each decision for finality (if not already marked on first page of decision after publication), amendments, rehearing, or other matters including motions for discretionary review (MDR) filed with the Supreme Court of Kentucky. Click Court of Appeals Minutes for entire listing of weekly minutes.
All decisions regardless of publication are posted and can be read, but those decisions designated not for publication cannot be cited as legal authority. See, KRCP 76.28(4)(c)(“Opinions that are not to be published shall not be cited or used as binding precedent in any other case in any court of this state; however, unpublished Kentucky appellate decisions, rendered after January 1, 2003, may be cited for consideration by the court if there is no published opinion that would adequately address the issue before the court. Opinions cited for consideration by the court shall be set out as an unpublished decision in the filed document and a copy of the entire decision shall be tendered along with the document to the court and all parties to the action.”)
