Torts and Negligence Flashcards

Under Kentucky's pure comparative fault system, a plaintiff found 80% at fault for her own injuries may recover what portion of her damages?

Answer: 20% of her damages

Kentucky follows pure comparative fault under KRS 411.182, so a plaintiff recovers damages reduced by her percentage of fault, even if she is more than 50% at fault.

A landowner in Kentucky fails to warn a social guest about a hidden defect in the porch stairs that the owner knew about. The guest is injured. What duty analysis applies?

Answer: A licensee is owed a warning of known hidden dangers, so the owner may be liable

In Kentucky, a social guest is a licensee, and the landowner must warn of known dangers that are not obvious to the guest.

A driver suffers an unforeseeable heart attack and crashes into a storefront. In a negligence action, the driver's best defense is:

Answer: The sudden medical emergency negates breach of duty

A sudden, unforeseeable incapacity means the driver did not fail to act as a reasonable person, defeating the breach element.

A plaintiff sues a Kentucky physician for medical negligence. To establish the standard of care, the plaintiff generally must present:

Answer: Expert testimony on the degree of care of a reasonably competent practitioner

Medical negligence in Kentucky ordinarily requires expert testimony establishing the standard of care and its breach, unless the negligence is obvious to a layperson.

A blasting company conducts controlled demolitions and, despite all possible precautions, debris damages a neighbor's home. The neighbor's strongest theory of recovery is:

Answer: Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity

Blasting is a classic abnormally dangerous activity, imposing strict liability regardless of the precautions taken.

In Kentucky, the statute of limitations for most personal injury actions is:

Answer: One year from the date the injury accrues

KRS 413.140 sets a one-year limitations period for most personal injury claims in Kentucky, subject to exceptions like the two-year MVRA period for motor vehicle claims.

A store customer slips on a puddle of spilled soda. Under Kentucky premises liability law after Lanier v. Wal-Mart, once the customer proves she fell due to a foreign substance, the burden:

Answer: Shifts to the store to show it exercised reasonable care

In Lanier v. Wal-Mart, Kentucky adopted a burden-shifting approach requiring the premises owner to prove it exercised reasonable care once the plaintiff shows an injury caused by a foreign substance on the premises.