Opinion ID: 1987358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Carman v. Dunaway distinguished.

Text: Baize's reliance on Carman v. Dunaway Timber Co., Inc., 949 S.W.2d 569 (Ky. 1997), is misplaced. While the accident in Carman occurred under facts almost identical to those in this case, the plaintiff in Carman was not within the class of persons that KOSHA intended to be protected. Carman was a private businessman, an independent logger, who was on Dunaway's premises for the purpose of selling his own logs to Dunaway. In declining to apply Teal v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 728 F.2d 799 (6th Cir.1984), which extended OSHA's coverage to employees of independent contractors who work at another employer's workplace, we noted that Carman was neither an independent contractor nor an employee thereof. Carman, 949 S.W.2d at 571. Contrary to Appellant's assertion, we did not thereby adopt Teal ; there was no need to do so because the holding in Teal did not apply to the facts in Carman . The holding in Teal , however, does apply to the facts of this case.