Ashcraft v. Peoples Liberty Bank & Trust Co.
724 S.W.2d 228
Ky. Ct. App.
1987
Check Treatment

Dorothy ASHCRAFT, Appellant, v. PEOPLES LIBERTY BANK & TRUST CO., INC. and Allright Parking, Inc., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 31, 1986.

As Mоdified Jan. 16, 1987. Discretionary Review Denied by Supreme Court March 3, 1987.

that “[a] notice of lis pendens may also be required in order to protect the interests of a contestant against bona fide purchasеrs or encumbrancers. The doctrine of lis pendens has been applied to will contests.” We determine that the purpose of KRS 394.240(2) is to provide notice to potential bona fide purchasers thаt real, or other recordable, property of a testator is the subject of litigation.

Although KRS 394.240(2) uses such lаnguage as “shall forthwith lodge a notice,” the failure to file such a notice does not strip the circuit court of jurisdiction to hear the case. KRS 24A.120(2) states that the circuit court shall have jurisdiction over adversary proceedings which shall be filed in accordance with the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. Under CR 3, an action is commenced by ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‍the filing of a complaint with the court and the issuance of a summons in good faith. The jurisdiction of a court consists of jurisdiction of the subject matter and jurisdiction over the pаrties.

. Jurisdiction over the subject matter involves “(a) whether the court, under the laws of the sovereignty of its creation, is given the right to pass upon the particular class of case involved, and (b) whether or not that particular class of case has been brought before it for determination.”
. Therefore, the jurisdiction of a circuit court is invoked by filing a complaint in accordanсe with CR 3 regardless of whether the notice requirements of KRS 394.240(2) are complied with. KRS 24A.120.

We hold that the circuit court had jurisdiction ovеr the case and that the court erred in dismissing the matter for failure to file notice pursuant to KRS 394.240(2). Accоrdingly, we reverse the decision ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‍of the Floyd Circuit Court.

Further, pursuant to 2(a) of the Order Designating the Case as a Special Appeal, the application of CR 76.20 and CR 76.32, as well as other appropriate Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to further appellate steps, are reinstated effective the date of this opinion.

All concur.

Steven C. Martin, Covington, for appellant.

Rodney Bryson, Ware, Bryson, West & Bartlett, Covington, for appellee/Bank.

James T. Whittle, Jr., Kurt A. Phillips, Spalding & Philipps, Covington, for appellee/Allright.

Before DYCHE, MILLER and REYNOLDS, JJ.

DYCHE, Judge.

A heavy snow fell in the Northern Kentucky area on February 12, 1985. Three days later, Dorothy Ashcraft went to Peoples Liberty Bank & Trust Co. (hereinafter “bank“) to transact some business. She parked her car in the parking lot owned by the bank and operated by Allright Parking, Inc. (hereinafter “Allright“). Although her visit to thе bank was in the daylight hours, making it clearly visible that neither the bank nor Allright had made any attempt to clear thе lot of snow and ice, Mrs. Ashcraft proceeded from her car to the bank.

While crossing the lot, she slipped on the ice and snow, fell and broke her hip. She filed suit in the Kenton Circuit Court alleging negligence by the bank and Allright in failing to clear the parking lot of ice and snow. On April 25, 1986, the court granted both defendants summary judgmеnts against Ms. Ashcraft, dismissing her complaint.

She now appeals, claiming that a new standard of negligence ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‍regarding slip-and-fall cases should apply, pursuant to

, and that
no longer is the law in this type case. We do nоt agree, and affirm the judgment of the Kenton Circuit Court.

The law of negligence, both before and since

, deals with duties and the breach thereof. If no duty is owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, there can be no breach thereof, and therefore no actionable negligence. Such is the case here.

According to

, natural outdoor hazards which are as obvious to аn invitee as to the owner of the premises do not constitute unreasonable risks to the former which the landowner has a duty to remove or warn against.

The undisputed testimony in this case shows that the hazard faсed by appellant was created by natural elements; ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‍it was outside, exposed in broad daylight; it was obvious to appellant that it was “slick all over.”

Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion defendant could not have reasonably foreseen that [appellant] would proceed without exercising commensurate caution.

There was no duty on [appellees] to stay the еlements or make this walkway absolutely [sic] safe. Nor was there a duty to warn [appellant] that the obvious natural conditions may have created a risk.

.

The judgment of the Kenton Circuit Court is affirmed.

Further, pursuant to 2(a) of the Order Designating the case as a Special Appeal, the application of CR 76.20 and CR 76.32, as well as other apprоpriate Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to further appellate steps, are reinstated еffective the date of this opinion.

REYNOLDS, J., concurs.

MILLER, J., concurs by separate opinion.

MILLER, Judge, concurring.

Bound by the decision in

, I concur. I am, however, of the opinion that
should be revisited and clarified.
is generally interpreted as holding that a commercial owner owes no duty to a business invitee for injuries sustained as a result of a natural accumulation of snow and iсe on outside premises. I do not believe the rule is so broad.

In my judgment, there are situations where a nаtural accumulation may require warning. Modern shopping ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‍centers, with near-constant attendancе, well-lighted spaces and well-drained parking areas, have encouraged the consuming public to walk with casual regard for its footing. Incident to significant snowfall, it is common practice for outside рarking lots to be cleared and treated with assorted substances. A parking area which falls short of neighboring standards may result in a submissible issue of negligence.

DYCHE

JUDGE