Clemons v. Browning, 85-CA-1039-MR

CourtKentucky Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtMILLER
CitationClemons v. Browning, 715 S.W.2d 245 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986)
Decision Date18 July 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-CA-1039-MR,85-CA-1039-MR
PartiesJames Bob CLEMONS, Appellant, v. Stanley W. BROWNING; Benjamin Matthews; and Jack Hardesty, Appellees.

Kenneth L. Sales, Louisville, for appellant.

Douglas B. Taylor, William B. Bowman, Louisville, for appellees.

Before GUDGEL, HOWERTON and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, Judge.

Appellant brings this appeal from a summary judgment entered in his personal injury suit. CR 56. The facts of the case are these: In 1984, Stanley W. Browning, a resident of Jefferson County, Kentucky, undertook to build a new home at 1418 Sylvan Way. Browning was not a builder, rather his business was that of an insurance agent. In building his home, he contracted with various contractors including Benjamin W. Matthews, d/b/a Matthews Construction Company (Matthews Construction), to erect the frame, and Stewart Roofing Company (Stewart Roofing) to install the roof. The construction commenced and Browning departed on vacation. On July 13, 1984, while Browning was on vacation, appellant/James Bob Clemons, an employee of Stewart Roofing, was injured when a scaffold upon which he was standing gave way. The scaffold was erected by Jack Hardesty, an employee of Matthews Construction. Clemons sued Browning, Matthews Construction and Jack Hardesty, alleging joint and several neglect regarding the construction of the scaffold.

The trial court, relying upon Simmons v. Clark, Ky., 426 S.W.2d 930 (1968), and Jennings v. Vincent's Adm'x., 284 Ky. 614, 145 S.W.2d 537 (1940), entered summary judgment in favor of Browning, thus precipitating this appeal. We affirm.

There is no doubt that construction of the house was accomplished through independent contractors. See Yellow Creek Coal Co. v. Lawson, 229 Ky. 245, 16 S.W.2d 1043 (1929). The liability of a landowner for acts of independent contractors is limited to those instances where the acts of the independent contractor(s) constitutes a nuisance or the acts themselves are inherently dangerous. See Jennings, supra. In the case at hand, there is no contention that the construction, the use of the scaffolding, or the building of the house constituted a nuisance. Nor, as a matter of law, does it amount to an inherently dangerous activity. See Simmons, supra, and Jennings, supra.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court is affirmed.

Further, pursuant to 2(a) of the Order Designating the case as a Special Appeal, the application of...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • Krahwinkel v. Commonwealth Aluminum Corp.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Kentucky
    • August 25, 2005
    ...v. Clark Constr. Co., 426 S.W.2d 930 (Ky.1968), Jennings v. Vincent's Adm'x, 284 Ky. 614, 145 S.W.2d 537 (1940), and Clemons v. Browning, 715 S.W.2d 245 (Ky.App.1986), for its holding that Commonwealth is not liable for Appellant's damages because the work performed by Intech was neither a ......
  • Krahwinkel v. Commonwealth Aluminum Corporation, No. 2003-SC-0708-DG (KY 2/23/2006)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Kentucky
    • February 23, 2006
    ...Clark Constr. Co., 426 S.W.2d 930 (Ky. 1968), Jennings v. Vincent's Adm'x, 284 Ky. 614, 145 S.W.2d 537 (1940), and Clemons v. Browning, 715 S.W.2d 245 (Ky. App. 1986), for its holding that Commonwealth is not liable for Appellant's damages because the work performed by Intech was neither a ......
  • Younger v. Wehr Constructors, Inc.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 2014
    ...the acts of the independent contractors constitute a nuisance or the acts themselves are inherently dangerous. Clemons v. Browning, 715 S.W.2d 245, 246 (Ky. App. 1986). Younger concedes that she is not seeking to impose liability on UMC for the actions of independentcontractors such as Wehr......
  • Commonwealth Aluminum Corporation v. Krahwinkel, 2002-CA-000124-MR.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • August 15, 2003
    ...225 F. Supp. 821, 825 (W.D.Ky. 1963), affirmed in part and modified in part, 341 F.2d 39 (6th Cir. 1965); see also Clemons v. Browning, Ky. App., 715 S.W.2d 245 (1986); Olds v. Pennsalt Chemicals Corp., 432 F.2d 1033 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 1010, 915 S. Ct. 1257, 28 L. Ed. 2......
  • Get Started for Free