Calhoun v. Provence
2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 97
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mrs. Calhoun sued Provence and Middleton for damages from a parking-lot collision; Calhouns later added Kentucky Auto Exchange, Yaden’s Auto Sales, and Legend Suzuki for negligent entrustment theories.
- The accident occurred May 15, 2007; Provence allegedly backed into Calhoun’s vehicle after a lapse in control and driving under medication; Provence pled guilty to Reckless Driving.
- Evidence showed preexisting health issues and multiple prior injuries; Dr. Grant linked adhesive capsulitis to the accident, though some evidence suggested idiopathic origins.
- Trial court bifurcated the case: Phase I addressed Provence’s liability and Calhoun damages; Phase II addressed negligent entrustment claims against Legend Suzuki and Yaden’s Auto Sales.
- Phase I resulted in a directed verdict for Calhouns on Provence’s liability and a verdict against Calhouns on causation of injuries; damages were modestly awarded.
- Phase II ended with a verdict in favor of Mrs. Calhoun against Kentucky Auto Exchange on negligent entrustment; Legend Suzuki and Yaden’s Auto Sales were found not liable for negligent entrustment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was bifurcation an abuse of discretion? | Calhouns contend bifurcation was not supported by law or facts. | Defendants argue bifurcation promoted efficiency and avoided prejudice. | No reversible error; court could bifurcate to promote economy. |
| Did the trial court err in denying a directed verdict/new trial on causation and damages? | Medical evidence linked injuries to the accident; damages were improperly limited. | Jury could credit alternate causes and idiopathic conditions; damages were properly limited. | Sufficient evidence supported causation/damages; no error in denial. |
| Was Provence’s charging documents admissible or excluded as evidence? | Charging documents were relevant to prove provocation/backing into Calhoun’s vehicle. | Charging documents were not probative and thus inadmissible. | Charging documents excluded; guilty plea admissible. |
| Did Legend Suzuki have primary insurance liability under KRS 186A.220 and Gainsco? | Legend Suzuki failed to verify insurance; it cannot shift primary coverage. | Gainsco permits consideration of prior dealings; statute may assign primary status. | Legend Suzuki designated primary insured; trial court affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Islands Creek Coal Co. v. Rodgers, 644 S.W.2d 339 (Ky. App. 1982) (bifurcation broad discretion; abuse only for arbitrary decisions)
- Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999) (bifurcation standards; deference to trial court)
- Jarboe v. Harting, 397 S.W.2d 775 (Ky. 1965) (causation requires medical evidence showing probable link, not merely possible)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 914 S.W.2d 343 (Ky. 1996) (evidence relevance; standard for admissibility in trials)
- Gainsco Companies v. Gentry, 191 S.W.3d 633 (Ky. 2006) (seller must verify insurance; mere prior dealings do not relieve duty)