Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh

Supreme Court of Kentucky · 2010 · Torts

TortsPremises liabilityOpen and obvious dangerComparative faultEvidenceinviteeland possessorduty

Facts

McIntosh, a trained paramedic, was helping transport a critically ill patient from the ambulance dock to the Hospital's emergency room entrance when she tripped over an unmarked, unprotected curb bordering a flat stretcher path and suffered injuries. Although she had used this entrance hundreds of times before, testimony showed that paramedics must focus on the patient and associated medical tasks rather than on each step while approaching the doors. Evidence also showed that nearby hospitals did not have similar uneven surfaces at their emergency room entrances. The jury found the Hospital liable, and the Hospital argued that the curb was an open and obvious danger that barred recovery.

Issue

Does the open and obvious doctrine eliminate a land possessor's duty to an invitee as a matter of law, or may the possessor still owe a duty when it is foreseeable that the invitee will be injured despite the danger's obviousness? Also, did the trial court err in admitting photographs of other hospital entrances and expert testimony about emergency room entrance safety?

Rule

A land possessor is generally not liable for harm caused by a known or obvious danger unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite the invitee's knowledge or the danger's obviousness. In Kentucky, the proper inquiry is foreseeability: lower courts must not simply label a condition open and obvious and deny recovery, but must ask whether the possessor could reasonably foresee injury and failed to take reasonable precautions. Open and obviousness usually bears on the plaintiff's comparative fault and heightens the plaintiff's duty to watch for his or her own safety, but it is not an automatic complete bar to recovery.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Louisville, Dana Ruiz delivers sterilized instruments to the surgical wing of Bluebank Medical Pavilion, a private hospital. To reach the receiving door, she must cross a plainly visible drainage channel cut across the walkway; while hurrying because staff told her the instruments were needed immediately for a patient already in surgery, she trips and is injured.

If Dana sues the hospital, which is the best statement of the hospital’s duty under the majority rule?

Explanation. The majority adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A: a possessor is generally not liable for known or obvious dangers unless it should anticipate the harm despite the obviousness. Foreseeability controls. Here, the hospital could foresee that Dana would reasonably encounter the danger because the benefit of urgent delivery could outweigh the apparent risk. Open and obviousness is not an automatic bar; it usually goes to comparative fault.