Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 07-01-2022
Case Style:
Charlotte A. Howard and James G. Howard v. City of Elizabethtown, Kentucky, et al. l.
Case Number: 2020-ca-0124-MR
Judge: McNeil
Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky on appeal from the Circuit Court, Hardin County
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Jason Bell, et al.
Description: Elizabethtown, Kentucky personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants on general negligence theories.
This is a personal injury action arising out of injuries Charlotte allegedly sustained on August 30, 2013. According to the complaint, the Howards were driving past Ring Road Softball Complex in Elizabethtown, Kentucky when a softball broke the passenger side window of the Howards' vehicle, striking Charlotte. At the time of incident, Kaos, a recreational softball team comprised of military and Department of Defense workers, was hosting a softball tournament at the complex. They had leased the complex from the City for the day to host the tournament. Kaos did not play in the tournament, but was responsible for managing concessions, serving as umpires, and tournament logistics.
On August 26, 2014, the Howards filed a complaint in Hardin Circuit Court alleging negligence and loss of consortium against Kaos, the City, and United States Specialty Sports Association, Inc. ("USSSA").[1] Subsequently, Kaos moved to dismiss the Howards' claims against it, arguing that it was an unincorporated association incapable of being sued under Kentucky law. The trial court granted the motion. On January 23, 2017, the Howards filed an amended complaint naming Stubbs, Kaos' coach, and Widmer, who helped purchase liability insurance for the event, as defendants.
KRS 411.190 provides in pertinent part:
(3) Except as specifically recognized by or provided in subsection (6) of this section, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on the premises to persons entering for such purposes.
(4) Except as specifically recognized by or provided in subsection (6) of this section, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreation purposes does not thereby:
. . .
(c) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act or omission of those persons.
Outcome: Judgment in favor of Defendants.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: