Opinion ID: 2973040
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The summary judgment order in favor of UPS

Text: Lee also argues on appeal that the summary judgment order in favor of UPS was improper because, under Lanier, once Lee has proven that crossing over the conveyor was dangerous and that it was a substantial factor in causing his injury, the burden shifts to UPS to prove an absence of negligence. In response, UPS claims that it had no duty either to warn or to protect Lee because the makeshift stairway over the conveyor belt was an open and obvious danger. UPS argues in the alternative that it is immune from tort liability under the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act as an “up-the-ladder employer.” See Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 342.610, 342.690 (West 2003). Because Lee collected workers’ compensation benefits, moreover, UPS claims that Lee waived his right to seek damages in tort from UPS. See id. § 342.690(1). As discussed above, Lanier is not controlling in the present case. Lee must therefore prove that UPS breached its duty to Lee and that the breach caused his injury. UPS’s relationship with Lee is clearly one of invitor/invitee because UPS, unlike Siemens, owned the premises on which Lee was injured. The scope of the duty to invitees in Kentucky requires an invitor such as UPS to “discover the existence of dangerous conditions on its premises and either correct them or warn of them.” Johnson v. Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Ky., Inc., 997 S.W.2d 490, 492 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999) (discussing the duty of an invitor under Kentucky law). An invitor’s duty to protect or warn invitees of dangerous conditions, however, does not encompass dangers that are open and obvious. See id., (precluding recovery for a plaintiff who slipped on peanut shells because the shells on the - 11 - No. 04-6481 Lee v. UPS, Inc. restaurant’s floor were open and obvious and because an invitor’s duty does not require “precaution or even warning” against such dangers). As explained above, the makeshift stairway over the conveyor was an open and obvious danger. UPS therefore had no duty to warn Lee or to protect him from the moving conveyor belt, because UPS was in no better position than Lee to appreciate the danger. In light of our holding that UPS did not breach its duty to Lee, we need not reach the issues of immunity and waiver under the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act.