Court Opinion

ID: 9381954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 14:04:54.927915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:35.959699
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 17, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                          TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                            Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2021-CA-1439-MR

KENT E. CULP                                                    APPELLANT

               APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE TIM KALTENBACH, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 20-CI-00283

SI SELECT BASKETBALL AND
PHILLIP R. SWINFORD                                              APPELLEES

                                  OPINION
                                 AFFIRMING

                                ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, CETRULO, AND COMBS, JUDGES.

CETRULO, JUDGE: Appellant Kent E. Culp appeals from a McCracken Circuit

Court Order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees and dismissing

his claims of negligence.
                  I.     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

              Appellee Phillip Riley Swinford (“Director Swinford”) was the

founder and director of Appellee SI Select Basketball (“SI Basketball”), a youth

basketball program based in Southern Illinois (collectively “Swinford”). To raise

money for SI Basketball’s five youth basketball teams, Swinford organized,

promoted, and hosted two or three youth basketball tournaments each year.

Swinford hosted two such tournaments at the Paducah Regional Sports Plex, LLC

(“the Sports Plex”),1 one in April 2018, and another in April 2019. This action

resulted from the events at the April 2019 tournament (“the Tournament”).

              The Tournament included approximately 60 teams, with a total of 600

to 700 players between the ages of 14 and 17. One of the teams invited to the

Tournament was coached by Keyon Chavez Menifield (“Coach Menifield”). Prior

to the invitation, Director Swinford and Coach Menifield had had only one other

interaction; the two coached against each other in a 2018 Missouri basketball

tournament and their communication at that time was “cordial.” At the time

Director Swinford invited Coach Menifield’s team to participate, and at the time of

the Tournament, Coach Menifield had criminal convictions for assault and drug

1
 The Sports Plex was an 80,000 square foot multi-use sports and recreation complex in
McCracken County, Kentucky.

                                             -2-
trafficking and was wanted on an active arrest warrant in Indiana.2 There was no

evidence that Director Swinford knew of this.

               An agent of SI Basketball hired Appellant Kent E. Culp (“Referee

Culp”) to officiate at the Tournament. On April 6, Referee Culp officiated a game

between Coach Menifield’s team and a team from Edwardsville, Illinois (“the

Game”). Coach Menifield’s team lost in overtime. Deposition testimony later

indicated that there was no apparent hostility – before or during the game –

between Referee Culp and Coach Menifield. However, immediately after the

Game, Coach Menifield struck Referee Culp from behind, hitting him in the head

with his fist and knocking him unconscious and causing serious injury.3 Coach

Menifield then collected his team and left the Sports Plex. He was later

apprehended at a nearby hotel and charged with second-degree assault.

               In March 2020, Referee Culp filed a complaint in McCracken Circuit

Court alleging four counts of negligence: 1) Swinford should have known of

Coach Menifield’s violent tendencies by conducting a criminal background check

on the invited coaches; 2) Swinford failed to establish safety policies and

procedures for the Tournament; 3) Swinford failed to use reasonable care to protect

2
 The warrant was issued after Coach Menifield assaulted a clerk at a hotel he was staying at
during another youth basketball tournament.
3
  Referee Culp was transported to Vanderbilt Medical Center in Nashville with injuries including
a brain bleed, broken collar bone, crack in his sinus cavity, concussion, and bruising to his face.

                                               -3-
invitees; and 4) Swinford failed to provide security guards for the Tournament.

Referee Culp alleged Swinford’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the

personal injuries he suffered from the attack and that the risk of an altercation at

the Tournament was reasonably foreseeable. However, the trial court disagreed,

finding that

               [a]s [a] promoter[] of the [T]ournament, [Director]
               Swinford had a duty to protect [Referee Culp] from the
               reasonably foreseeable criminal actions of a third party
               . . . . Because the evidence is uncontroverted that [Coach
               Menifield’s] assault of [Referee Culp] was not reasonably
               foreseeable, [Referee Culp] cannot prove a breach of
               [Director] Swinford’s standard of care.

               Therefore, in November 2021, the McCracken Circuit Court

dismissed Referee Culp’s claims and granted Director Swinford’s motion for

summary judgment, pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 56.03.4

Referee Culp appealed.

                               II.     STANDARD OF REVIEW

               The standard of review upon appeal of an order granting summary

judgment is “whether the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine

issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as

4
  CR 56.03 allows for summary judgment if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, stipulations, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.”

                                                 -4-
a matter of law.” Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky. App. 1996) (citing

CR 56.03). Upon a motion for summary judgment, all facts and inferences in the

record are viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and “all

doubts are to be resolved in his favor.” Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv. Ctr., Inc.,

807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991). The trial court “must examine the evidence, not

to decide any issue of fact, but to discover if a real issue exists.” Id. Thus, a

summary judgment looks only to questions of law, and we review de novo. Brown

v. Griffin, 505 S.W.3d 777, 781 (Ky. App. 2016).

                                   III.   ANALYSIS

             Under Kentucky law, a negligence action requires proof of “the

existence of a duty, breach thereof, causation, and damages.” Boland-Maloney

Lumber Co. v. Burnett, 302 S.W.3d 680, 686 (Ky. App. 2009) (citations omitted).

Duty is a question of law for the courts to determine, while breach and injury are

questions of fact for a jury. Pathways, Inc. v. Hammons, 113 S.W.3d 85, 89 (Ky.

2003). Our Kentucky Supreme Court has explained that

             [n]o liability is imposed when the defendant is deemed to
             have acted reasonably under the given circumstances. So
             a more precise statement of the law would be that a
             landowner’s duty to exercise reasonable care or warn of or
             eliminate unreasonable dangers is not breached. “When
             courts say the defendant owed no duty, they usually mean
             only that the defendant owed no duty that was breached
             or that he owed no duty that was relevant on the facts.”

                                          -5-
             And without breach, there can be no negligence as a matter
             of law.

Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc., Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901, 911-12 (Ky. 2013)

(citations omitted).

             Here, the parties agree that all persons have a duty to use care to

prevent foreseeable injury. See Kendall v. Godbey, 537 S.W.3d 326, 331 (Ky.

App. 2017) (citation omitted). On appeal, the parties actually agree a duty existed.

However, they disagree as to whether a duty was breached. More specifically,

Referee Culp argues that (a) issues of material fact exist; (b) foreseeability is a

question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the court; and (c) assuming

foreseeability is an issue for the court, the trial court erred in granting summary

judgment because “assaultive conduct” was reasonably foreseeable.

             To the contrary, Director Swinford argues the trial judge appropriately

determined that (a) there was no issue of material fact; (b) precedent does not

prevent summary judgment in issues of foreseeability; and (c) Director Swinford

did not breach a duty to Referee Culp to protect him from Coach Menifield’s

assault because the attack was not reasonably foreseeable.

             While the basic criteria for a negligence action have remained

consistent in Kentucky, Carter v. Bullitt Host, LLC, 471 S.W.3d 288, 289 (Ky.

2015), the application of the rule of foreseeability has evolved in the last decade.

See Shelton, 413 S.W.3d at 908.

                                          -6-
               In Shelton, the Kentucky Supreme Court clarified Kentucky tort law

to “modernize” the analysis and to “eliminate unfair obstacles to the presentation

of legitimate claims.” Shelton, 413 S.W.3d at 904. The Shelton Court shifted the

conversation around foreseeability: instead of being an aspect of the existence of a

duty, the Court determined that foreseeability should be treated as a factor within

the breach analysis. Id. at 903-04. However, that shift is limited to open-and-

obvious cases, not cases involving third-party criminal actions, like the matter

before us. Walmart, Inc. v. Reeves, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2023 WL 2033691, at *3

(Ky. Feb. 16, 2023) (not yet final) (“Shelton’s cabining of foreseeability to a

breach analysis is thus limited only to open-and-obvious cases.”).5

               In Reeves, there was an attack upon a customer in a parking lot of a

Lexington area Walmart. Id. at *1. The customer had exited the store and reached

her car safely before two unknown men attempted to rob her. Id. She filed suit

against Walmart, alleging negligence for not protecting against the assault and for

not having a security presence to protect patrons. Id. Walmart moved for

summary judgment which the trial court granted, noting that discovery had not

shown other alleged criminal acts at or near the location, or of sufficient character

5
  Reeves, 2023 WL 2033691, at *3 (not yet final) was published well after the parties filed briefs
in this matter. The parties relied on Shelton’s applicability, but as stated, the recent Supreme
Court decision in Reeves makes Shelton inapplicable to the facts before us. A petition for
rehearing was filed on March 8, 2023.

                                               -7-
and number, as to have made this assault foreseeable to Walmart. Id. On appeal, a

panel of this Court reversed, holding that Shelton’s foreseeability shift was

intended to apply to all negligence claims, relying on Carter, 471 S.W.3d at 297.

Reeves, supra. However, in Reeves, our Supreme Court clarified that our reliance

on Carter was based on dicta and in error. Id. at *3.

             To clarify, our Supreme Court stated in Reeves:

                   Shelton’s cabining of foreseeability to a breach
             analysis is thus limited only to open-and-obvious cases.
             Even if it were to extend beyond open-and-obvious cases,
             however, it certainly could not extend so far as cases
             involving third-party criminal actions. Landowners
             cannot control the actions of third parties on their property,
             making these cases markedly different from those
             involving the man-made or naturally occurring aspects of
             a property capable of maintenance or curative measures.

                    Additionally, extending Shelton to third-party
             criminal activity would create an economically untenable
             reality for business owners and, ultimately, their
             customers.

             ....

             [A] landowner has a duty to protect patrons from third-
             party acts only if he or she “knows of activities or conduct
             of other patrons or third persons which would lead a
             reasonably prudent person to believe or anticipate that
             injury to a patron might be caused,” and if he or she can
             reasonably safeguard against them. [Napper v. Kenwood
             Drive-In Theatre Co., 310 S.W.2d 270, 271 (Ky. 1958)].

Reeves, 2023 WL 2033691, at *3 (not yet final).

                                          -8-
             The Court held that Reeves needed to provide evidence that a third-

party criminal act involving attempted robbery and assault was reasonably

foreseeable to Walmart. Id. at *4. Reeves’s evidence was unable to reach this

threshold because the criminal acts she presented were too distinct factually,

occurred too distantly in time, and failed to establish a pattern that could lead

Walmart to anticipate the kind of crime committed against Reeves. Id. Moreover,

the Court stated that “foreseeability is specific to the premises at issue[.]” Id.

Thus, in the matter before us, whether Director Swinford had a duty to protect

Referee Culp from Coach Menifield’s assault hinges upon whether the assault was

reasonably foreseeable or could have been anticipated.

             Here, in 10 years of coaching and promoting tournaments at the

Sports Plex, Director Swinford had never experienced a fight among participants.

The owner/operator of the Sports Plex testified that there had been four or five

instances of verbal arguments between fans at previous events, but he knew of no

physical assaults. Referee Culp produced “run reports” to the Sports Plex from

local law enforcement; however, those reports included only one account of an

assault by one participant upon another player in January 2017. That was not at an

event promoted by Director Swinford, but rather at a league game promoted by

some other renter of the facility. Referee Culp testified that he had refereed

between 10 and 15 tournaments at the Sports Plex; he had never been concerned

                                          -9-
about violence there previously; nor, had he seen any assaults on other participants

or other referees. In 20 years as a referee, he had never experienced a fight or

assaultive behavior. Finally, he stated that the punch from Coach Menifield was

not signaled by anything that occurred during the game or the entire day. He had

no clue that the punch was coming. Consistent with Reeves, the evidence

presented does not establish a pattern that could have led Director Swinford and/or

SI Basketball to anticipate the assault on Referee Culp. Since Coach Menifield’s

criminal acts were not reasonably foreseeable, the trial court did not err in granting

summary judgment.

                               IV.   CONCLUSION

             Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the McCracken Circuit

Court.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

 Brian S. Katz                             William E. Pinkston
 Paducah, Kentucky                         Paducah, Kentucky

                                         -10-