Taylor v. Kennedy, 84-CA-1706-MR
| Decision Date | 28 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-CA-1706-MR,84-CA-1706-MR |
| Citation | 700 S.W.2d 415 |
| Parties | Randy Steven TAYLOR, Appellant, v. Patsy Hampton KENNEDY, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Annie Sue Hampton, and Edward Kennedy, Appellees. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Donna A. Chu, Ben S. Fletcher, III, Hopkinsville, for appellant.
Wendell Rorie, Hopkinsville, for appellees.
Before COOPER, HOWARD and WILHOIT, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the appellees, defendants below, in an action for negligence. On appeal, the principal issue is whether the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in ruling that there was no evidence of probative value to support a finding of negligence on the part of the appellees, and in ruling that the appellant was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Reviewing the record below, we reverse and remand.
The facts relative to this action are as follows: In August of 1981, the appellant, Randy Steven Taylor, filed a negligence action against the appellees, Patsy Hampton Kennedy, individually and as Executrix of the estate of Annie Sue Hampton, and Edward Kennedy, for injuries he sustained while in their employ. Specifically, he alleged that he was employed by the appellees to work on their dairy farm, and on August 31, 1980, "while climbing up steps of [a grain] silo and in the exercise of due care, [he] slipped and fell some sixty (60) feet to a concrete floor due to the unsafe and slippery condition of said silo steps ... thereby suffering serious personal injuries." The appellant alleged that the appellees violated the provisions of KRS 338.031 in not providing him with a safe place in which to work, i.e., in not using every device and method practical to prevent the existing slippery condition on the silo's steps.
After discovery by both parties, the action was tried by a jury. During the trial, the issue of the appellees' negligence and the issue of the appellant's contributory negligence were raised. Furthermore, an issue was raised as to whether the appellant was, in fact, employed at the time of his injury, and whether the steps on the silo were defectively designed. Subsequent to the presentation of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and the duty of the appellees' agent, Richard Wood, if he were the appellees' agent at the time of the accident.
The jury returned a verdict for the appellant in the amount of $25,000: $17,000 representing lost wages and the impairment of his power to earn money; $8,000 representing reasonable hospital and medical expenses. No amount was awarded for pain and suffering. Thereafter, the appellees moved the trial court for judgment n.o.v. and/or a new trial. In their motion, they argued that the appellant was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and any negligence with respect to the silo should be borne by its designer. The trial court subsequently entered judgment n.o.v. for the appellees. It is from such judgment that the appellant now appeals.
On appeal, the single issue is whether the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in ruling that there was no evidence of probative value to support a finding of negligence on the part of the appellees, and in ruling that the appellant was negligent as a matter of law. Reviewing the record below, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
In ruling on either a motion for a directed verdict or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a trial court is under a duty to consider the evidence in the strongest possible light in favor of the party opposing the motion. Furthermore, it is required to give the opposing party the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fayette County Board of Education v. Maner, No. 2007-CA-002243-MR (Ky. App. 5/22/2009)
...on a material issue in the action, or if no disputed issue of fact exists upon which reasonable men could differ." Taylor v. Kennedy, 700 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Ky. App. 1985) (citation omitted). Regarding the deliberate indifference element, given the foregoing evidence cited, viewed under the l......
-
Bye v. Mattingly
...can only be rebutted by the strongest showing of incapacity. Williams v. Vollman, Ky.App., 738 S.W.2d 849 (1987); Taylor v. Kennedy, Ky.App., 700 S.W.2d 415, 416 (1985). Testamentary capacity is only relevant at the time of execution of a will. New v. Creamer, Ky., 275 S.W.2d 918 (1955). Th......
-
Bye v. Mattingly, 97-SC-208-DG
...can only be rebutted by the strongest showing of incapacity. Williams v. Vollman, Ky.App., 738 S.W.2d 849 (1987); Taylor v. Kennedy, Ky .App., 700 S.W.2d 415, 416 (1985). Testamentary capacity is only relevant at the time of execution of a will. New v. Creamer, Ky., 275 S.W.2d 918 (1955). T......
-
PBI Bank, Inc. v. Signature Point Condos. LLC
...on a material issue in the action, or if no disputed issue of fact exists upon which reasonable men could differ." Taylor v. Kennedy , 700 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Ky. App. 1985). A reviewing court may not disturb a trial court's decision on a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict unles......