Richard Storm v. Louis Martin
2016 SC 000457
| Ky. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- On Sept. 14, 2008 a windstorm downed trees in Louisville. Three days later Louis Martin crashed his motorcycle on Phillips Lane after hitting a downed tree and sued.
- Martin named Louisville Metro officials including County Engineer Richard Storm (in his individual capacity) alleging negligence for failing to remove the hazardous tree or warn motorists.
- Trial court denied Storm’s summary judgment claim of qualified immunity (while granting it for another defendant); the Court of Appeals likewise held Storm owed a ministerial duty under KRS 179.070(1)(o).
- At trial Storm testified he was unaware of the statutory duty, that tree removal was handled by the Operations & Maintenance division, and that his division lacked equipment; jury found unanimously for Storm.
- Martin moved for JNOV/new trial arguing the jury verdict was against overwhelming evidence that Storm breached the statutory duty; the trial court denied relief and the Court of Appeals ordered a new trial.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it upheld denial of a directed verdict/JNOV but reversed the Court of Appeals’ grant of a new trial (finding sufficient evidence supported the jury verdict and that the statutory duty may be satisfied by delegation/substantial compliance).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Storm had a ministerial statutory duty under KRS 179.070(1)(o) | Martin: statute creates a specific ministerial duty to remove hazardous trees; Storm breached it | Storm: either unaware and operations division performs removals; not personally responsible | Court: duty is ministerial (no immunity) but not necessarily non-delegable or absolute; jury must decide negligence |
| Whether trial instructions preserved error re: specifying statutory duty | Martin: proposed instruction explicitly cited KRS 179.070 and asked jury to find failure to comply | Storm: final instruction substantially tracked plaintiff’s proposed instruction and was not objected to at trial | Court: Martin failed to preserve complaint about instruction wording; instructions did not misstate law |
| Whether jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence (warranting new trial/JNOV) | Martin: Storm’s admissions established undisputed breach; verdict was unsupported | Storm: testimony about departmental practice and delegation created factual dispute | Court: Affirmed trial court’s denial of JNOV/new trial—ample evidence supported jury finding; reversed Court of Appeals’ remand for new trial |
| Whether statutory use of "shall" imposes strict non-delegable liability | Martin: statutory duty is mandatory and breaches are negligence per se | Storm: statute does not dictate non-delegation or exact method; substantial compliance possible | Court: "shall" does not automatically create strict liability; legislative intent and practicality (emergency cleanup) allow delegation/substantial compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Wales v. Pullen, 390 S.W.3d 160 (Ky. Ct. App.) (interpreting county engineer duty to remove hazardous trees and ministerial nature of that duty)
- Henson v. Klein, 319 S.W.3d 413 (Ky. 2010) (when supported by evidence, statutory duties must be incorporated into jury instructions as specific enumerated duties)
- Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001) (distinction between ministerial acts and discretionary functions for immunity analysis)
- Knox Cnty. v. Hammons, 129 S.W.3d 839 (Ky. 2004) (analysis whether statutory provisions are mandatory or directory and inquiry into legislative intent)
- Savage v. Three Rivers Med. Ctr., 390 S.W.3d 104 (Ky. 2012) (standard of review for denial of JNOV and new trial)