Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc.
2013 Ky. LEXIS 581
| Ky. | 2013Background
- Shelton, while visiting her hospitalized husband at Cardinal Hill Rehabilitation Hospital, tripped on wires extending from the bed and fractured her knee.
- The wires were open and visible along the right side of the bed, where Shelton approached to kiss her husband goodbye.
- Shelton alleged Cardinal Hill breached its duty to maintain a reasonably safe premises due to the exposed cords; the trial court granted summary judgment in Cardinal Hill’s favor.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review after McIntosh was decided.
- The Court adopts a no-breach framework, placing foreseeability analysis under the fact finder, and reverses to remand for further proceedings.
- Cardinal Hill’s duty arises from the landowner-invitee relationship; Shelton was an invitee and thus entitled to reasonable care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the duty analysis should focus on breach rather than existence of duty | Shelton argues foreseeability governs breach, not a duty label. | Cardinal Hill contends no breach due to open-and-obvious condition and no duty breached. | Question of breach, not mere duty, governs the case. |
| Whether open-and-obvious dangers negate a landowner’s duty under Restatement 343A | Open-and-obvious does not automatically bar breach; foreseeability matters for breach. | Open-and-obvious hazard absolves the landowner of liability. | Open-and-obvious does not eliminate duty; jury decides breach under standard of care. |
| What is the proper framework for summary judgment in premises liability after McIntosh | Trial should resolve foreseeability and breach with jury guidance. | Summary judgment is appropriate where no reasonable jury could find breach or foreseeability. | Summary judgment remains available only where no fact issues exist regarding breach under the standard of care. |
| Whether Cardinal Hill breached its duty by failing to eliminate or warn about the cords | The cords created an unreasonable risk the hospital had reason to foresee. | Burden of removing cords could interfere with patient care; risk may be outweighed by benefits. | Material fact questions exist about breach; case remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntosh v. University of Kentucky Hospital, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010) (abandoned no-duty approach; open-and-obvious dangers assessed for foreseeability by fact-finders)
- Bonn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 440 S.W.2d 526 (Ky. 1969) (open-and-obvious dangers; lack of duty with respect to pit hazard at auto service)
- Pathways, Inc. v. Hammons, 113 S.W.3d 85 (Ky. 2003) (duty framed broadly; breach fact-intensive and not suitable for over-specific duty statements)
- Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476 (Ky. 1991) (summary judgment standard to be applied cautiously; not a defense tool)
- Hillen v. Hays, not provided in text (not provided) (discussed as historical context for comparative fault and duty concepts)