Charles H. Reynolds

This case arose from a workplace accident in which a bulldozer operator was injured when the vehicle lost braking power on a steep slope; he sued the manufacturer Caterpillar for defective design of the braking system in a products liability action. The Sixth Circuit certified a question of Kentucky law asking whether the comparative fault statute, KRS 411.182(1), had negated the earlier products liability statute, KRS 411.320(1), which had barred recovery when a product was altered or modified. The Kentucky Supreme Court answered yes, holding that the comparative fault statute applies to products liability claims and requires apportionment of fault among all parties, including the product owner and operator for maintenance and use issues. The court reasoned that the plain language and legislative history of the 1988 comparative fault statute expressly encompass products liability actions and cannot be harmonized with the prior statute without undermining its purpose.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Danny LaFollette entered a conditional guilty plea to felony marijuana cultivation after police used an informant's tip and a warrantless helicopter flyover equipped with Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) to detect excess heat from his indoor grow operation, then obtained a search warrant leading to the seizure of evidence. The trial court denied suppression of the evidence, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the FLIR surveillance did not constitute a search under Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution or the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that FLIR is a passive device measuring only heat emissions or "waste" from the exterior of a structure without penetrating it or infringing on any reasonable expectation of privacy that society would recognize, drawing on precedents such as Katz v. United States and comparisons to other non-intrusive techniques like drug-sniffing dogs or garbage searches. The informant's tip was deemed sufficient to bolster probable cause once the FLIR data was deemed admissible. The opinion notes a dissent arguing that the FLIR use violated privacy interests akin to those in Katz.

criminal lawcivil rights

In this case, a group of nonvoting shareholders of the insolvent Kentucky Central Life Insurance Company sought to appeal a trial court order approving a Participation Agreement between the company's liquidator, state guaranty associations, and Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company. The agreement implemented an earlier-approved Term Sheet for handling policyholder claims and included a right of first refusal for the guaranty associations on the company's real estate assets. The shareholders argued that the right of first refusal would depress asset values and that the liquidator had a duty to maximize value for all parties. The Kentucky Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the nonvoting shareholders lacked standing because prior rulings had denied their motions to intervene, statutory authority limited challenges to the board of directors, and they had not participated as parties of record in the relevant proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a challenge by Associated Industries of Kentucky, a business association, to various provisions of the Kentucky Code of Legislative Ethics and Executive Branch Code of Ethics, which regulate lobbying activities including registration, disclosure, reporting, and prohibitions on contingent fees and certain campaign activities by lobbyists. The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that many of the constitutional challenges, including those related to fines, penalties, and reporting requirements, lacked a justiciable controversy or standing because the association was registered and no proceedings were pending, and the affected lobbyists were not parties to the suit. The court declined to address the merits of claims regarding vagueness or overbreadth in several provisions due to these jurisdictional issues.

free speechelectionscriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved the Montgomerys suing attorney James Milam for slander of title after he prepared and filed a mechanic's and materialman's lien on their property in July 1991 on behalf of the Rogers, who had worked on a golf course development. The trial court dismissed the December 1992 complaint as barred by the one-year statute of limitations under KRS 413.140, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the slander of title claim accrued when the lien was filed and recorded, creating a cloud on title, rather than when actual damages like foreclosure occurred. Additional claims, including conspiracy and wrongful attachment, were also dismissed, with procedural errors like an improper third-party complaint failing to toll the limitations period.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved claims by Steelvest, Inc. against Scansteel Service Center, Inc. and related parties for breach of fiduciary duties arising from tortious acts, seeking damages at law. After remand, the trial court denied a jury trial under Civil Rule 39.01(c) on grounds that the case's complexity, peculiar questions, and great detail of facts made it impractical for a jury. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the state constitution's Section 7 guarantees an inviolate right to jury trial in actions at law as it existed in 1791, and that CR 39.01(c) unconstitutionally expands beyond historical equitable exceptions like complicated accounts to permit denial based on complexity. The court reversed the bench trial ruling and remanded for a jury trial on the claims against Scanlan and Scansteel, while affirming dismissal of claims against other defendants.

procedurecivil rights