KENTUCKY RIVER MEDICAL CENTER V. McINTOSH 319 S.W.3d 385 (2010) CASE BRIEF

KENTUCKY RIVER MEDICAL CENTER V. McINTOSH

319 S.W.3d 385 (2010)

NATURE OF THE CASE: McIntosh (P) sued Hospital (D) in a premises liability case. P got the verdict and denied D's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the supreme court granted the D's petition for discretionary review.

FACTS: P was transporting a critically ill patient to D. She and two Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) arrived at the ambulance dock, and began guiding the patient to the emergency room entrance. Immediately outside the emergency room entrance there is a flat surface which is eleven feet wide to allow stretchers to be wheeled directly from the ambulance dock into the emergency room. This flat area rises on both sides to form a curb. This curb is unmarked and unprotected. Essentially, the area looks like a wide curb ramp used for wheelchair access, except that the 'ramp' part is flat rather than at an incline. P had helped transport about 400 patients to this emergency room entrance before, and she had always navigated past the protruding curb without incident. This time she tripped and fell over it, suffering a fractured hip and sprained wrist. P sued D arguing that the curb was an unreasonably dangerous condition which caused her injuries. P's attention was not focused on the curb; rather, she remained focused on attending to the critically ill patient. Evidence was introduced showing that having such a tripping hazard at an emergency room entrance is very rare, if not unique in Breathitt County and the counties adjoining it. P testified that she transports patients to several nearby hospitals and that none of them have any uneven surface between the ambulance dock and the doors. P was awarded $40,409.70 for medical expenses, $65,000 for impairment of her earning capacity, and $50,000 for pain and suffering, for a total of $ 155,409.70. D then moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, renewing its argument about the open and obvious doctrine, which the trial court denied. This appeal resulted.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner