413 S.W.3d 315
Ky. Ct. App.2013Background
- Hughes sues Haas and the Clark County Sheriff’s Department for injuries from a training incident
- Haas, though a Clark County deputy, served as a Metro employee and on-call SWAT member for the Sheriff’s Department
- During a March 20, 2009 training at a Clark County facility, Haas fired a blank cartridge causing Hughes’s permanent hearing loss
- Hughes filed suit October 28, 2009 alleging negligence, breach of contract, and premises liability
- The Sheriff’s Department moved to dismiss; Haas moved for summary judgment; the court granted both motions after discovery
- On appeal, the court reviews jurisdiction, agency, and summary-judgment issues de novo
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Kentucky long-arm jurisdiction apply? | Long-arm statute extends to out-of-state contracting to supply services | Contract with Metro did not supply goods/services in Kentucky; training occurred in Indiana | Long-arm statute not applicable; claims against Sheriff’s Department dismissed |
| Was the Sheriff's Department properly before Kentucky court via long-arm? | Agreement with Metro gave Kentucky jurisdiction | No in-state provision of services; contract did not occur in Kentucky | No jurisdiction under long-arm; dismissal proper |
| Is Haas immune under KRS 342.690 as a fellow employee or not? | Haas acted as Sheriff’s Department agent; immunity may be defeated | Haas was acting as Metro employee; no basis to pierce immunity | No genuine issue Haas acted as Sheriff’s Department agent; immunity applies |
| Was summary judgment proper given the record? | There are triable issues of material fact | No genuine issues; undisputed facts show no liability | Court correctly granted summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Pari-Mutuel Clerks’ Union of Kentucky, Local 511, SEIU, AFL-CIO v. Kentucky Jockey Club, 551 S.W.2d 801 (Ky.1977) (summary-judgment standard when pleadings and evidence viewed together)
- Hoke v. Cullinan, 914 S.W.2d 335 (Ky.1995) (treats CR 12.02 as summary judgment when evidence outside pleadings)
- Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476 (Ky.1991) (summary-judgment standard; movant must show no genuine issue of material fact)
- City of Florence v. Chipman, 38 S.W.3d 387 (Ky.2001) (trial court must view evidence in light favorable to non-movant)
- Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779 (Ky.App.1996) (de novo review of summary judgments on appeal)
- Pinkston v. Audubon Area Community Services, Inc., 210 S.W.3d 188 (Ky.App.2006) (standard for overcoming summary judgment; affirmative evidence required)
- Brunner v. Hampson, 441 F.3d 457 (6th Cir.2006) (contractual activities in out-of-state; focus on where services were provided)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court, 1945) (establishes minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court, 1958) (purposeful availment of forum benefits and protections)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (Supreme Court, 1980) (foreseeability and connection to forum for jurisdiction)
- National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. White, 83 S.W.3d 530 (Ky.2002) (connects long-arm analysis to due process considerations)