Court Opinion

ID: 9672260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:51:40.881222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:15.093614
License: Public Domain

JAMES LEVIN, Special Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent.
The sole issue in this case is whether the complaint alleging ordinary negligence is sufficient to state a claim for injuries received during a sporting contest. CR 8.01 states:
(1) A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (a) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and (b) a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. [Emphasis added.]
The Cullinan complaint alleged that Hoke “negligently and carelessly drove a tennis ball into [Cullinan’s] face,” injuring him. After discovery depositions were taken of Hoke and Cullinan, Hoke moved for a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to CR 12.03. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the basis that the “plaintiff has not shown any evidence to indicate that the defendant acted in either a reckless or intentional way in causing plaintiffs injuries.” The trial court considered the deposition testimony of the parties, so that the motion to dismiss was treated as a motion for summary judgment.
I agree with the opinion rendered by the Court of Appeals, “if the order is viewed as one granting summary judgment, it was premature inasmuch as discovery was not complete when entered. See Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Ctr., Ky., 807 S.W.2d 476 (1991).”
In Lexington Country Club v. Stevenson, Ky., 390 S.W.2d 137 (1965), the plaintiff sued the golfer and the Country Club for the loss of her eye as a result of being struck in the eye by a golf ball. The case was submitted to the jury on the question of negligence against the golfer and negligence of the Country Club for having an unreasonably dangerous layout. This Court affirmed the verdict in favor of the golfer and against the golf course.
A complaint that alleges negligence should be all that is necessary in a sports setting since foreseeability and assumption of the risk issues are involved in the negligence question and should be determined in the light of the circumstances of each fact situation.
This was not a summary judgment case. The court should have restricted its review to determine the sufficiency of the complaint. This case does not lend itself to determining the standard of care that should be applied in the event of an injury arising in a sporting event.
I would affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals only so far as it holds that a general averment of negligence is sufficient to permit proof of recklessness and would remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
FUQUA, J., joins.