Court Opinion

ID: 9690407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:11:22.755047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:56.756379
License: Public Domain

KELLER, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority because Martin’s evidence created a jury issue under the law as it existed before this Court decided Lanier v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.1 I dissented in Lanier because the majority’s decision to invert the burden of proof in slip-and-fall cases “not only conflicts with basic principles of negligence law, but also with the common law principle that a proprietor is not an insurer for a customer’s safety.”2 My position in this regard has not changed, and I thus disagree with the Lanier analysis in today’s majority opinion. However, because our pre-Lanier precedent also compels the conclusion that the trial court properly submitted the case to the jury,31 concur in result only.
JOHNSTONE, J., joins this concurring opinion.

. Ky., 99 S.W.3d 431 (2003).

. Id. at 438 (Johnstone, J., dissenting).

. See Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Ky., 6 S.W.3d 829, 831 (1999).