Court Opinion

ID: 9908296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 15:06:31.16166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:05.284393
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: DECEMBER 1, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Commonwealth of Kentucky
                            Court of Appeals
                               NO. 2022-CA-1340-MR

FRANKLIN WOOD, JR.                                                        APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.                HONORABLE JESSICA E. GREEN, JUDGE
                         ACTION NO. 20-CI-000484

DIANE L. VAN ARSDALE;                                                      APPELLEES
DARRELL VAN ARSDALE;
DEBORAH L. MADDOX; KAREN
VAN ARSDALE; AND KENLIE LLC

                                      OPINION
                                     AFFIRMING

                                     ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CETRULO, KAREM, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: Franklin Wood, Jr. (“Wood”) appeals from the Jefferson

Circuit Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee

homeowners1 (“Homeowners”) on his premises liability claim. Finding no error,

we affirm.

1
 Appellees are Diane L. Van Arsdale, Darrell Van Arsdale, Deborah L. Maddox, Karen Van
Arsdale, and Kenlie, LLC.
                 Homeowners inherited property at 4104 Hycliffe Avenue from their

mother when she passed away in 2018. In preparation to sell the property, they

hired Wood and his wife to paint portions of the home’s interior. As Wood exited

the house to get supplies, the porch handrail gave way and he fell, injuring his leg.

The PVC pipe handrail had been installed sometime prior to March 23, 2013, to

assist Homeowners’ mother in entering and exiting the house.

                 Wood filed a complaint in Jefferson Circuit Court arguing

Homeowners were negligent in failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably

safe condition. Following discovery, Homeowners filed a motion for summary

judgment, arguing that because Wood was an independent contractor, their duty

was limited to warning of dangers or defects they had actual knowledge of, and

they were unaware the railing was defective. Wood responded that he was an

invitee and therefore Homeowners owed him a duty to discover the dangerous

condition and either eliminate it or warn him of it. The trial court granted the

motion and dismissed Wood’s complaint.2 This appeal followed.

                 “The standard of review on appeal of a summary judgment is whether

the circuit judge correctly found that there were no issues as to any material fact

and that the moving party was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Pearson

ex rel. Trent v. Nat’l Feeding Systems, Inc., 90 S.W.3d 46, 49 (Ky. 2002). “The

2
    Wood subsequently filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate which was also denied.

                                                -2-
reviewing court must construe all facts in favor of the nonmoving party and

granting summary judgment is only appropriate when ‘the movant shows that the

adverse party could not prevail under any circumstances.’” City of Versailles v.

Johnson, 636 S.W.3d 480, 483 (Ky. 2021) (quoting Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel

Serv. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991)). Further, the existence of a duty

is a question of law, which we review de novo. Bramlett v. Ryan, 635 S.W.3d 831,

835 (Ky. 2021), reh’g denied (Dec. 16, 2021) (citation omitted).

                As an initial matter, we must address the deficiency of Wood’s

appellate brief. His argument section fails to make “reference to the record

showing whether the issue was properly preserved for review and, if so, in what

manner” as required by RAP3 32(A)(4). We require a statement of preservation:

                so that we, the reviewing Court, can be confident the
                issue was properly presented to the trial court and
                therefore, is appropriate for our consideration. It also has
                a bearing on whether we employ the recognized standard
                of review, or in the case of an unpreserved error, whether
                palpable error review is being requested and may be
                granted.

Oakley v. Oakley, 391 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Ky. App. 2012).

                “Our options when an appellate advocate fails to abide by the rules

are: (1) to ignore the deficiency and proceed with the review; (2) to strike the brief

or its offending portions, [RAP 31(H)(1)]; or (3) to review the issues raised in the

3
    Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                             -3-
brief for manifest injustice only[.]” Hallis v. Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Ky.

App. 2010) (citing Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Ky. App. 1990)). Because

the record is small, and we have been able to determine Wood’s arguments were

properly preserved, we will ignore the deficiency and proceed with the review.

             Wood argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment

because Homeowners breached their duty of reasonable care owed to him as an

invitee and issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. Here, the trial

court determined Wood was an independent contractor, and thus Homeowners only

had a duty to warn of hidden or latent defects about which they had actual

knowledge. The court ruled there was no evidence Homeowners knew the handrail

was defective and therefore Wood could not prove breach, and consequently

negligence, as a matter of law.

             On appeal, Wood does not challenge his status as an independent

contractor but instead argues the trial court applied the wrong standard of care.

Wood claims that, as an invitee, Homeowners owed him a “duty to . . . discover

unreasonably dangerous conditions on the land and either eliminate or warn of

them.” Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc., Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901, 909 (Ky.

2013), as corrected (Nov. 25, 2013) (citation omitted). We disagree.

             Under Kentucky law, “premises liability claims are treated differently

when the plaintiff is an independent contractor as opposed to an ordinary business

                                         -4-
invitee.” Dexter v. Hanks, 577 S.W.3d 789, 795 (Ky. App. 2019) (citing

Auslander Properties, LLC v. Nalley, 558 S.W.3d 457 (Ky. 2018)). Our Supreme

Court recently reaffirmed the duty owed by landowners to independent contractors

in Auslander:

             In the context of a premises liability claim, a landowner
             is not liable to an independent contractor for injuries
             sustained from defects or dangers that the independent
             contractor knows or ought to know of. Owens v. Clary,
             256 Ky. 44, 75 S.W.2d 536, 537 (Ky. 1934). Only when
             “the defect or danger is hidden and known to the owner,
             and neither known to the contractor, nor such as he ought
             to know,” is the landowner liable for the contractor’s
             injuries absent a warning. Id. at 537.

558 S.W.3d at 467 (footnote omitted).

             Thus, while a landowner’s duty to an invitee, generally, is “to

discover unreasonably dangerous conditions on the land and either eliminate or

warn of them[,]” Shelton, 413 S.W.3d at 909 (citation omitted), when the invitee is

an independent contractor, “the landowner only has a duty to warn of (1) hidden or

latent defects; (2) the landowner actually knows about; and (3) the contractor does

not or cannot discover himself.” Dexter, 577 S.W.3d at 795 (citing Auslander, 558

S.W.3d at 467). Wood acknowledges the rule stated in Auslander and Dexter but

argues those cases are distinguishable. For instance, he claims the issue in

Auslander and Dexter was whether the plaintiff knew or should have known of the

                                         -5-
dangerous condition, whereas, here, the issue is whether the defendant

Homeowners knew or should have known of such.

             This difference is immaterial as these are just two sides of the same

coin. As noted above, a landowner is only liable to an independent contractor for

defects both known to the landowner and unknown to the contractor. Both

conditions are relevant to the question of liability. The trial court correctly

identified the duty owed to Wood as an independent contractor as stated in

Auslander, 558 S.W.3d 457.

             Finally, Wood argues issues of fact preclude summary judgment

specifically, whether Homeowners knew the PVC railing was defective or

dangerous. We again disagree. “[Kentucky] precedent clearly establishes that

actual – rather than constructive – knowledge of a hidden danger is required to

establish a duty for a landowner to warn or take steps to protect an independent

contractor and its employees.” Brewster v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 279 S.W.3d

142, 148 (Ky. 2009) (citation omitted).

             Darrell Van Arsdale testified the handrail “seemed to work fine,” and

that he “was not aware of any problems that [his mother] ever had with it” during

the five-plus years it was in place. He also stated his mother-in-law used the

handrail a few days prior to the incident with no issues. Wood has presented no

evidence to dispute this testimony. “[A] party opposing a properly supported

                                          -6-
summary judgment motion cannot defeat it without presenting at least some

affirmative evidence showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for

trial.” Steelvest, 807 S.W.2d at 482 (citations omitted).

             Wood claims actual knowledge can be established by circumstantial

evidence, citing CertainTeed Corp. v. Dexter, 330 S.W.3d 64, 81 (Ky. 2010).

However, Wood has presented no circumstantial evidence Homeowners knew the

railing was a hidden or latent defect. Instead, he argues Homeowners had actual

knowledge the handrail was made of PVC pipe. But it cannot be assumed, as

Wood seems to suggest, that a PVC handrail, by nature, is a hidden or latent defect.

Considering the countervailing testimony that the railing had been used reliably the

previous five years, including as recently as several days before the incident, that

assumption was not sufficient. A party “cannot rely on their own claims or

arguments without significant evidence in order to prevent a summary judgment.”

Wymer v. JH Properties, Inc., 50 S.W.3d 195, 199 (Ky. 2001). We agree with the

trial court that Wood failed to produce any evidence Homeowners were aware the

PVC railing was a dangerous condition. As such, he could not establish

Homeowners breached any duty as a matter of law, and summary judgment was

proper.

             Accordingly, the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court is affirmed.

                                         -7-
           ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:     BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

Steven R. Romines         Curt L. Sitlinger
Lawrence I. Young         Christopher D. Snead
Louisville, Kentucky      Louisville, Kentucky

                         -8-