Court Opinion

ID: 9756395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:26:49.130446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:21.371341
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Justice VENTERS.
Although I am in complete agreement with the majority opinion insofar as it reaffirms the applicability of Owens v. Clary1 and rejects the extension of the Lanier2 approach, I dissent because, in my view, the Appellees should not have been granted summary judgment. As then Judge McAnulty pointed out in his dissent to the Court of Appeals opinion in this case:
A party does not have to meet their burden of proof in order to survive a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is not a substitute for trial nor is it the functional or equivalent of a motion for directed verdict. Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky.1991). The proper function of summary judgment is *151to terminate litigation when as a matter of law it appears that it would be “impossible” for the respondent to produce evidence at trial warranting judgment in his favor.
Under traditional premises liability law, even without the benefit of a Lanier burden-shifting approach, Appellant established the existence of a genuine issue with respect to each fact material to his claim. He demonstrated his ability to produce evidence to establish that he had been exposed to a hazardous condition — asbestos containing material — while on the Ap-pellees’ premises. He demonstrated the existence of evidence from which one could reasonably conclude that the Appellees were aware of the presence of asbestos containing material in the premises and that they knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of that presence. He could offer evidence that they could have known of the materials hazardous quality. He could offer evidence that he had not been warned of the existence of the hazardous condition, and that he suffered damages as a result. There may have been weaknesses in his case but, on the motion for summary judgment, the burden was on the Appellees to establish the non-existence of any genuine issue of material fact. Roberts v. Davis, 422 S.W.2d 890 (Ky.1968). Any factual inferences to be drawn from a conflict or ambiguity in the evidence must be drawn to the advantage of the nonmoving party. Fischer v. Jeffries, 697 S.W.2d 159 (Ky.App.1985).
In my view, the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment did not meet the Steel-vest standard because it did not negate the realistic possibility that the Appellant could produce at trial, evidence sufficient to meet his burden of proof. The summary judgment should be vacated, and the case remanded for trial in the circuit court.
SCOTT, J. joins this dissenting opinion.

. 256 Ky. 44, 75 S.W.2d 536 (1934)

. Lanier v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 431 (Ky.2003)