Stinnett v. Buchele

Kentucky Court of Appeals · 1979 · Torts

TortsEmployer negligenceSafe place to worksummary judgmentemployer liabilitysafe workplaceordinary careOSHA

Facts

Dr. Buchele hired Stinnett as a farm laborer, and Stinnett later undertook to repair and coat a barn roof on Buchele's farm. Stinnett fell from the roof while applying the coating with a paint roller and was severely injured. The only proof in the record came from the prior workers' compensation proceeding, which the court treated as evidence by agreement because neither party objected. Stinnett had prior painting experience, including painting a church steeple and barn roofs, and safety belts or nets had sometimes been used on such jobs.

Issue

Does an employee injured while working on a barn roof have a tort claim against his employer based on alleged violations of occupational safety regulations or on the employer's alleged failure to provide a safe place to work, where the record shows no other evidence of employer negligence?

Rule

Under KRS 338.021(2), a violation of occupational safety regulations promulgated under Kentucky's occupational safety scheme does not enlarge or create an independent tort cause of action by an employee against an employer. Separately, an employer's common-law duty is to exercise ordinary or reasonable care to furnish a workplace and tools reasonably safe in light of the work, not to provide absolute safety; where the employee's knowledge of the danger is equal to the employer's and no negligence by the employer is shown, the case should not go to the jury.

🔒

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 Owensboro, Kentucky, Lena Ortiz worked for Blue Hollow Orchards, a small farm operation. While replacing loose metal panels on a storage shed roof, she fell and sued the farm, alleging only that the employer violated a Kentucky occupational safety rule requiring fall protection for certain elevated work.

Under the majority rule, what is the strongest argument for the employer on Lena's tort claim?

Explanation. The majority held that, because the occupational safety statute preserved existing common-law and statutory rights and liabilities, an alleged violation of an occupational safety regulation did not grant the employee an independent tort cause of action against the employer. The employer's best argument is therefore that the regulation cannot itself supply the cause of action.