Louisville Sw Hotel, LLC v. Charlestine Lindsey
2019 SC 0539
| Ky. | Dec 14, 2021Background
- Five-year-old Chance Brooks drowned in the indoor pool of a Comfort Inn hotel after entering the deep end; rescue occurred about ten minutes later and he later died.
- Pool area was crowded, no lifeguard was on duty, and hotel policy assigned monitoring to a front-desk clerk via a multi-feed video monitor with a partially obstructed view.
- The Estate alleged the pool water was cloudy and the hotel had a history of health-department violations for chemical testing/logging and failed to enforce occupancy limits; these facts were presented at trial.
- A jury found Lindsey 65% at fault and Comfort Inn 35% at fault, awarded compensatory damages (medical/funeral) but $0 for pain and suffering, loss of future earning capacity, and parents’ loss of consortium, and awarded $3,000,000 in punitive damages; the trial court reduced punitive damages by remittitur to a 5:1 ratio.
- Both sides appealed; the Court of Appeals ordered a limited retrial on the three $0 compensatory items and upheld punitive damages issues; the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for punitive damages instruction | Estate: evidence of gross negligence (cloudy water, prior violations, lack of staff/monitoring) established by clear and convincing evidence | Comfort Inn: evidence only of ordinary negligence; JNOV or directed verdict required | Court: No clear error — sufficient evidence to instruct jury on punitive damages; trial court did not err |
| Whether Turfway requires retrial for $0 award of a child’s future earning potential | Estate: Turfway mandates that a zero award for a healthy child’s future earnings is improper; limited retrial required | Comfort Inn: Turfway distinguishable; jury may award $0 | Court: Overruled Turfway to the extent it precluded zero awards; no retrial required for loss of future earning potential |
| Whether $0 awards for pain and suffering and loss of consortium require retrial | Estate: zero awards inconsistent with evidence (expert testimony and video) and warrant retrial | Comfort Inn: jury may credit or reject testimony; zero awards are within jury discretion | Court: Jury’s $0 awards for pain and suffering and loss of consortium stand; no new trial required |
| Proper remittitur ratio and base for comparison (pre- vs post-apportionment) | Estate/trial court: 5:1 ratio appropriate; compare punitive to gross (pre-apportionment) compensatory damages | Comfort Inn: 5:1 excessive; if applied it should be to post-apportionment compensatory amount | Court: 5:1 remittitur did not violate due process; punitive assessed against pre-apportionment compensatory damages (comparative fault not applied to punitive) |
Key Cases Cited
- Turfway Park Racing Ass'n v. Griffin, 834 S.W.2d 667 (Ky. 1992) (held a zero award for a child’s future earning potential was improper; partially overruled by Lindsey)
- Rice v. Rizk, 453 S.W.2d 732 (Ky. 1970) (recognized inference that an infant would have some earning power for wrongful-death damages)
- BMW of N. Am. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (established guideposts for constitutional review of punitive damages)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (endorsed that single-digit punitive/compensatory ratios are more likely to comport with due process)
- Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) (addressed constitutionality of punitive damages ratios)