Sheppard v. Immanuel Baptist Church
| Decision Date | 15 December 1961 |
| Citation | 353 S.W.2d 212 |
| Parties | Hazel SHEPPARD, Appellant, v. IMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Howell W. Vincent, Edwin H. Henry, Covington, for appellant.
Marion W. Moore, Blakely, Moore & O'Hara, Covington, for appellees.
Appellant, Hazel Sheppard, brought suit against appellees, Immanuel Baptist Church and its Board of Trustees, by which she sought to recover damages for injuries she sustained when she fell in the church. Appellees filed an answer which contained, inter alia, a plea that the church was operated as a religious charitable institution and therefore was immune from liability for tortious actions and also that appellant had been guilty of contributory negligence. The deposition of appellant was taken on discovery, and two affidavits by the minister, Rev. Coers, were filed. A motion of appellees for summary judgment was sustained by the circuit court. We are unable to determine from the judgment whether the motion was sustained on the ground that the church was not liable for tort or whether the facts disclosed on discovery and by affidavit were the bases of a finding that appellant beyond doubt was guilty of such contributory negligence as bars recovery.
The judgment was entered before our decision in Mullikin Adm'x v. Jewish Hospital Association of Louisville, Ky., 348 S.W.2d 930, wherein this court departed from its previous rule which granted to such charitable institutions immunity from tort liability, and permitted these institutions to assume the same duties and liabilities as those of other persons and entities not engaged in religious or charitable work.
There remains the question of whether a summary judgment should have been granted on the ground that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact concerning whether appellant was contributorily negligent.
The deposition taken on discovery and the affidavits by the minister failed to show clearly facts as to the conditions which caused the fall by appellant. She testified that a short time before three o'clock on February 1, 1958, she entered the church of which she was a member for the purpose of attending the marriage ceremony of her stepson. Shortly before the ceremony the minister summoned her into his office. The office had two doors which were open. She entered the door from the front vestibule of the church. After she had been in the office a few minutes someone else appeared at the same door and the minister invited her to leave by a door other than the one through which she had entered.
It is impossible to obtain from the record a true description of the circumstances which existed. Apparently there was an unlighted hall outside the door that contained a ramp which she stated led to the basement. We also get the impression that through this hall one may reach flights of stairs which lead to a chapel the next floor above.
She testified:
'
An affidavit by Rev. Coers contained this statement:
'Some other matter came up and Hazel Sheppard was excused by this Affiant, and as she was making her way out the opposite door from which she had entered, she stumbled over the offset which exists in the building, fell with force and injured herself.'
Appellant also testified that she did not look down to see if there was a step off. A ramp leading from a door is not rare but at the same time it is not such a common or ordinary method of construction that it might reasonably be anticipated by one entering a dark hall if the hall in fact is without proper lighting. We are not sure if this ramp leads directly either up or down from the door; in fact, the testimony of appellant indicated that the ramp crossed the door in a right angle plane when she stated Rev. Coers' statement that 'she stumbled over the offset which exists in the building' adds nothing to clarify the picture.
We have held that a party moving for summary judgment under CR 56 has the burden of establishing that no genuine issue as to material facts exists and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Puckett v. Elsner,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Totten v. Parker
...force another party to reveal his entire case merely by making motion for summary judgment.' Appellants rely on Sheppard v. Immanuel Baptist Church, Ky., 353 S.W.2d 212, wherein it was 'CR 56 was never intended to be a substitute for a court trial in cases where a party has not had an oppor......
-
Montgomery v. Montgomery, 1999-SC-1111-DG.
...restaurant owner who named his restaurant alter the actor and decorated it with "Our Gang" pictures). 5. Sheppard v. Immanuel Baptist Church, Ky., 353 S.W.2d 212, 214 (1961). See also Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Ky., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (1991) ("Even though a trial court ma......
-
Garnier v. St. Andrew Presbyterian Church of St. Louis, 53653
...v. Fong et al., 37 Cal.2d 356, 232 P.2d 241; Roman Catholic Church, etc. v. Keenan, 74 Ariz. 20, 243 P.2d 455; Sheppard v. Immanuel Baptist Church et al. (Ky), 353 S.W.2d 212; Foster v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Vermont, 116 Vt. 124, 70 A.2d 230, 25 A.L.R.2d 1; Friend v. Cove Methodist Chur......
-
Ashland Oil & Refining Co. v. Bertram and Thacker
...that we have pointed out that summary judgment should seldom be entered in an action predicated upon negligence. Sheppard v. Immanuel Baptist Church, Ky., 353 S.W.2d 212 (1961) and Stewart v. Lawson, Ky., 437 S.W.2d 733 Ashland calls attention to orders reserving certain rights to it. The P......