Carter v. Bullitt Host, LLC
2015 Ky. LEXIS 1854
| Ky. | 2015Background
- James Carter, a hotel guest at a Holiday Inn Express, slipped on a patch of ice under a covered carport and broke his ankle after an overnight snowstorm.
- Carter testified the covered area was wet, dark (lights off), and that he did not expect ice under the carport; photos show the carport had three open sides.
- Hotel employees indicated maintenance had not yet salted or cleared the area; Carter received emergency treatment and later surgery.
- Carter sued for negligence; the hotel moved for summary judgment arguing the ice was an open-and-obvious natural hazard under Standard Oil Co. v. Manis.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the hotel; Court of Appeals affirmed. Supreme Court granted review to address Manis and the open-and-obvious doctrine post-Hilen, McIntosh, Shelton, and KRS 411.182 (comparative fault statute).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Manis (no duty for open-and-obvious natural hazards) still bars recovery | Manis is incompatible with modern law and was undermined by McIntosh/Shelton and comparative-fault adoption | Manis remains good law; open-and-obvious natural hazards create no duty | Manis rule is no longer viable; open-and-obvious natural-hazard cases are subject to comparative fault |
| Whether comparative-fault (Hilen/KRS 411.182) controls apportionment in open-and-obvious cases | Carter: comparative-fault requires apportionment of fault and allows jury consideration of landowner breach | Hotel: open-and-obvious rule removes duty so comparative-fault not implicated | Comparative-fault governs; duty, breach, causation and apportionment remain for factfinder when appropriate |
| Role of open-and-obviousness (duty vs breach) after Shelton | Carter: openness goes to breach/foreseeability and should not extinguish duty as a matter of law | Hotel: obviousness negates duty per Manis and related precedent | Open-and-obviousness is a circumstance for breach/causation and allocation of fault, not an automatic no-duty defense |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on these facts | Carter: disputed facts about notice, lighting, whether storm ongoing, and hotel actions preclude summary judgment | Hotel: undisputed evidence shows natural accumulation of ice, no duty, and no proof of forced encounter | Summary judgment was improper; genuine factual issues about hotel’s reasonableness and Carter’s conduct require trial and apportionment under comparative fault |
Key Cases Cited
- Standard Oil Co. v. Manis, 433 S.W.2d 856 (Ky. 1968) (established rule excusing landowner duty for obvious natural accumulations of snow/ice)
- Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. 1984) (adopted pure comparative-fault replacing contributory negligence)
- Kentucky River Med. Ctr. v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010) (discussed open-and-obvious doctrine and foreseeability)
- Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc., Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901 (Ky. 2013) (held obviousness typically addresses breach/foreseeability; duty not automatically extinguished)
- Corbin Motor Lodge v. Combs, 740 S.W.2d 944 (Ky. 1987) (applied Manis post-Hilen; criticized in majority opinion)
- Schreiner v. Humana, Inc., 625 S.W.2d 580 (Ky. 1981) (denied summary judgment where ice was not visible, creating factual dispute on obviousness)
- City of Madisonville v. Poole, 249 S.W.2d 133 (Ky. 1952) (refused no-duty rule where darkness and lack of lighting made hazard non-obvious)
- PNC Bank, Kentucky, Inc. v. Green, 30 S.W.3d 185 (Ky. 2000) (landholder who undertakes snow/ice mitigation assumes duty to do so reasonably)