Court Opinion

ID: 9397789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 14:05:42.236329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:27.655596
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MAY 19, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals

                              NO. 2022-CA-0828-MR

ANTHONY BRADLEY, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF MITZI WESTOVER                                            APPELLANTS

                APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE ANNIE O’CONNELL, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 18-CI-004436

LOUISVILLE MEGA CAVERN, LLC                                            APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                   ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, DIXON, AND ECKERLE, JUDGES.

ECKERLE, JUDGE: Anthony Bradley, Individually and as Administrator of the

Estate of Mitzi Westover (collectively, “the Estate”) appeals from a judgment of

the Jefferson Circuit Court that confirmed a jury verdict in favor of Louisville

Mega Cavern, L.L.C. (“LMC”). The Estate argues that the trial court abused its
discretion in its evidentiary rulings and in its instructions to the jury. Finding no

abuse of discretion, we affirm.

    I.     Facts and Procedural History

              LMC operates an underground adventure park on the site of a former

limestone mine in Louisville, Kentucky.1 LMC operates several attractions on the

site, including an underground, aerial adventure ropes course called Mega Quest.

On August 17, 2017, Mitzi Westover, her husband Anthony Bradley, and her

niece, Hanna Folk, purchased tickets for Mega Quest. Prior to taking part in any

activity at LMC, they were required to read and execute a “Participant Agreement”

(“the Agreement”). The Agreement describes the course as follows:

              The Mega Quest aerial challenge course is self-guided
              and includes short ziplines, sky bridges and walkways,
              (some inclined), located high in the cavern and some
              consisting of planking supported by steel cables and
              cable handrails. Mega Quest Participants are responsible
              for making all Equipment Transfers on their own after
              watching a training video, the careful viewing of which is
              extremely important and receiving instructions and
              training from tour guides using special equipment. The
              age limit for the Mega Quest challenge course is five
              years old. Participants must be able to reach a height of
              50 inches with the palm of the hand with an outstretched
              arm while standing flatfooted on the floor, and weigh less
              than 310 pounds.

1
 The property comprising the former limestone mine is owned by Louisville Underground,
L.L.C. The Estate named that entity as a party defendant in its complaint. However, it was
dismissed by agreed order prior to trial and is not a party to this appeal.

                                              -2-
            In addition, the Agreement addressed medical and safety concerns,

stating:

            The activities are designed for Participants of average
            mobility and strength who are in reasonably good health.
            Underlying medical problems including for example
            obesity, high blood pressure, cardiac and coronary artery
            disease, pulmonary problems, pregnancy, arthritis,
            tendonitis, other joint and muscular skeletal problems, or
            other medical, physical, psychological and psychiatric
            problems, may impair the safety and wellbeing of
            Participants on the course. All such conditions may
            increase the inherent risks of the experience and cause
            Participants to be a danger to themselves or others and
            Participants therefore must carefully consider those risks
            before choosing to participate, and they must fully inform
            the Provider or its staff of any issues, in writing, prior to
            using the Facilities. Provider reserves the right to
            exclude anyone from participating because of medical,
            safety, or other reasons it deems appropriate. Participant
            . . . : (1) represents that each Participant or Minor
            Participant is physically able to participate in the
            activities without being a danger to themselves or to
            others; (2) acknowledges that participation is purely
            voluntary, and done so in spite of the risks (3) is not
            pregnant, nor under the influence of alcohol, illegal
            drugs, or impairing legal drugs; (4) agrees to abide by all
            instructions provided by the Provider or the Provider’s
            staff; (5) will not make any adjustments to zipline or
            challenge course equipment but, instead, will allow all
            adjustments to be made only by or with the assistance of
            Provider or Provider’s staff; (6) will not intentionally flip
            over or invert while riding on the ziplines.

      The Agreement goes on to identify “inherent” risks in the Mega Cavern:

            Serious injuries can occur in zipline courses, challenge
            course tours, and bike park activities including the risk of
            injury or death. Risks include among others the

                                        -3-
             following: falls, contact with other participants and fixed
             or falling objects, and moving about or being transported
             over the sometimes uneven terrain and grounds on which
             the activities are initiated and conducted[.] . . . The
             physical risks range from small scrapes and bruises to
             bites and stings, broken bones, sprains, neurological
             damage, and in extraordinary cases, even death. These
             risks, and others, are inherent to the activities that is, they
             cannot be eliminated without changing the essential
             nature, educational and other values of the experience. In
             all cases, these inherent risks, and other risks which may
             not be inherent, whether or not described above must be
             accepted by those who choose to participate.

             Following these disclosures, the Agreement states that the participant

understands the nature of the activities and voluntarily assumes the risks involved.

This provision also states that LMC “has no duty to protect against the risks of

illness, injury and death associated with these activities inherent and otherwise, and

whether or not described above, including those which may result from negligent

acts or omissions of other participants or staff.”

             The Agreement also included a “Release and Indemnity” provision,

stating that each participant will release, hold harmless, and indemnify LMC for

any injuries caused by the activity, including claims of negligence and gross

negligence. This section further states that the participant agrees as follows:

             not to sue [Provider] for any liability for causes of action,
             claims and demands of any kind and nature whatsoever,
             including personal injury and death, products and
             premises liability and otherwise, that may arise out of or
             relate in any way to my . . . enrollment or participation in
             Provider’s programs. The claims hereby indemnified

                                          -4-
                against include, among others, claims of participants and
                members of my . . . family, arising out of losses caused
                by, or suffered by me . . . . The agreements of release
                and indemnity include claims of negligence of a Released
                Party including without limitation claims of gross
                negligence, but not claims of willful injury.

                The Agreement concluded with bolded language stating:

                                        WARNING
                Under Kentucky law, there is no liability for an injury to
                or death of a participant in an agritourism activity
                conducted at this agritourism location if injury or death
                results exclusively from the inherent risks of the
                agritourism activity and in the absence of negligence.
                You are assuming the risk of participating in this
                agritourism activity. KRS[2] 247.800-247.8010.

                As required, Westover, Bradley, and Folk electronically signed the

Agreement. They then checked in at the front desk and were provided with

equipment for the course. LMC provided a safety briefing and training on the

course and use of the equipment. Shortly thereafter, the party began the Mega

Quest course. Westover started an element that consisted of two horizontal ladders

suspended from overhead wire ropes. Westover fell on the first ladder and was

assisted by an LMC employee.

                She fell again on the second ladder and was unable to get back on the

ladder. The LMC employee called for a rescue via a lower-line kit. Westover was

suspended on the harness for between five to eight minutes. Westover was

2
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                            -5-
responsive for most of this time. But as she was being lowered, Westover lost

consciousness and became unresponsive. LMC called 911, which did not arrive

on the scene for another nine minutes. Westover was transported to the hospital,

where she died on August 22, 2017.

             On July 31, 2018, Bradley, individually and as administrator of

Westover’s Estate, brought this action against LMC asserting claims of personal

injury and wrongful death. Bradley separately asserted a claim for loss of spousal

consortium. LMC moved for summary judgment based on the “Release and

Indemnity” provisions in the Agreement. LMC also argued that it was entitled to

agritourism immunity under KRS 247.809. The Trial Court denied the motion for

summary judgment, concluding that the pre-injury release was not enforceable.

The Court also determined that LMC was not entitled to immunity under KRS

247.809.

             Prior to trial, the Estate moved to exclude any reference to the

Agreement, arguing that it was not relevant based on the Court’s finding it was

unenforceable. LMC responded that the Agreement was relevant to show she had

been informed of the risks of the activity, and that she had agreed she was able to

participate without being a danger to herself or others. The Trial Court agreed with

LMC and allowed introduction of the Agreement.

                                         -6-
                At trial, the Estate presented evidence that Westover’s death was

caused by suspension trauma resulting from her extended time hanging

unsupported on the harness. The Estate argued that this suspension trauma was

caused by LMC’s failure to exercise ordinary care in the operation of the Mega

Quest course and LMC’s failure to properly train its staff to respond to

emergencies. In response, LMC argued that Westover’s death was caused by her

pre-existing health conditions and her own failure to exercise ordinary care.

Following the close of proof, the jury found that the Estate failed to prove that

LMC failed to exercise ordinary care in the operation of the Mega Quest course

and that such failure was a substantial factor in causing Westover’s death.

                The Estate filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to CR3 59.01. The

Trial Court denied the motion and entered a judgment dismissing based upon the

jury’s verdict. The Estate now appeals. Additional facts will be set forth below as

necessary.

      II.    Standard of Review

                A trial court is vested with broad discretion in granting or denying a

new trial, and its decision will not be reversed unless it was “arbitrary,

unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v.

3
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                            -7-
English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). Since the Trial Court had the direct

opportunity to consider the evidence and the conduct of the parties, any doubts

must be resolved in favor of the Trial Court. CertainTeed Corp. v. Dexter, 330

S.W.3d 64, 73 (Ky. 2010).

             In this case, the Estate first argues that it was entitled to a new trial

because the Trial Court erroneously admitted certain evidence. We review the

Trial Court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Goodyear Tire and

Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 577 (Ky. 2000). “The test for abuse of

discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair,

or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Id. at 581. More specifically, a court

abuses the discretion afforded it when “(1) its decision rests on an error of law . . .

or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or (2) its decision . . . cannot be located

within the range of permissible decisions.” Miller v. Eldridge, 146 S.W.3d 909,

915 n.11 (Ky. 2004) (cleaned up).

   III.   Admission of the Agreement into Evidence

             The Estate first raises several issues relating to the Trial Court’s

admission of the Agreement into evidence. Based on the Trial Court’s finding that

the Release and agritourism-immunity provisions in the Agreement were

unenforceable, the Estate filed a motion in limine to exclude the Agreement or any

                                           -8-
reference to it at trial. The Estate argued that the Release provisions were

irrelevant and likely to confuse the jury with matters not at issue.

             In response, LMC noted that the Agreement set out the risks of the

activity, including to persons with health issues. By signing the Agreement,

Westover stated that she was aware of the risks, she was physically capable of

performing the Mega Quest course, and that she was not under the influence of any

illegal or legal intoxicating drugs. LMC argued that the disclosures in the

Agreement were relevant to show that Westover failed to exercise ordinary care in

undertaking the Mega Quest course. LMC further argued that the Agreement was

relevant to show that Westover failed to inform LMC of her medical conditions or

her medications.

             The Trial Court concluded that, even though the Release and

agritourism-immunity provisions of the Agreement were unenforceable, the

Agreement itself was still relevant to the disputed issues of negligence. The Trial

Court redacted the bolded agritourism warning at the end of the Agreement, except

for the line, “You are assuming the risk of participating in this . . . activity.”

             Subsequently, the Estate requested a limiting instruction advising the

jury that the Release was unenforceable, but “you may consider the ‘Participant

Agreement’ for the purpose of determining whether Mitzi Westover was aware of

                                           -9-
the risks associated with the ‘Mega Quest’ ropes course.” The Trial Court declined

to provide this instruction to the jury.

                The Estate extensively argues that the Release provisions in the

Agreement were not enforceable. However, the Trial Court agreed, finding that

the release was not enforceable as a waiver or release of LMC’s liability for

negligence. LMC does not appeal this ruling. Rather, the question on appeal is

whether the Agreement was otherwise relevant to the factual matters in dispute; the

question is whether the evidence was relevant, or if the prejudicial effect of the

evidence substantially outweighed its probative value.

                Under KRE4 401, relevant evidence is defined as “evidence having

any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the

determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be

without the evidence.” Under KRE 402, “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible”

unless otherwise excluded by the law or rules of evidence. “Evidence which is not

relevant is not admissible.” KRE 402. Relevance is established by any showing of

probativeness, however slight. Springer v. Commonwealth, 998 S.W.2d 439, 449

(Ky. 1999). However, under KRE 403, even relevant evidence may be excluded

“if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue

4
    Kentucky Rules of Evidence.

                                           -10-
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of

undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

             The Estate cites two out-of-state cases holding that it is prejudicial

error to admit an unenforceable liability-limiting agreement. Matador Production

Co. v. Weatherford Artificial Lift Systems, Inc., 450 S.W.3d 580, 594 (Tex. App.

2014); and Blue Valley Co-op v. National Farmers Organization, 600 N.W.2d 786,

793-96 (Neb. 1999), overruled on other grounds by Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb.

280, 929 N.W.2d 40 (2019). However, in both cases there were no claims that the

agreements were relevant for any reason except as a waiver of liability. Matador,

450 S.W.3d at 595; Blue Valley, 600 N.W.2d at 794. In this case, the Trial Court

expressly found that the Agreement was relevant to the disputed issues of

negligence. Those issues included whether LMC notified Westover of the inherent

risks of the activity, as well as any risks that the activity may have posed to

individuals with limited mobility or medical conditions.

             LMC further argued that the Agreement was relevant to determine the

adequacy of its warnings. The Trial Court also concluded that the Agreement was

a party admission by Westover under KRE 801A(b). By signing the Agreement,

the Trial Court found that Westover manifested her assent to and adoption of the

disclosures in the Agreement, as well as her own representations that she was

physically capable of performing the activity. Obviously, the Estate raised other

                                         -11-
disputed issues of negligence, including whether LMC staff was adequately trained

and had access to proper equipment in the event of an emergency.

             While the Agreement may not have been admissible to prove that

Westover waived or released LMC from liability for its own negligence, it was

otherwise relevant to show whether Westover was informed of the risks of the

Mega Quest course, as well as whether she properly informed LMC of any

physical or medical conditions and medications that may have affected her safety

on the course. Because these issues were relevant to the disputed issues of

negligence, we conclude that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion by

allowing LMC to introduce the Agreement into evidence.

             The more significant question is whether the Agreement’s probative

value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The Estate contends

that the Release and Indemnity language was likely to confuse the jury about the

ultimate issue of liability. Specifically, the Estate argues that the language may

have misled the jury into believing that Westover had waived her right to claim

negligence by LMC.

             The Trial Court must make three basic inquiries when making a

determination under KRE 403: (1) assessment of the probative worth of the

evidence whose exclusion is sought; (2) consideration of the probable impact of

specified, undesirable consequences likely to flow from its admission (i.e., “undue

                                        -12-
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, . . . undue delay, or

needless presentation of cumulative evidence”); and (3) a determination of whether

the harmful effects from admission exceeds the probative worth of evidence.

Webb v. Commonwealth, 387 S.W.3d 319, 326 (Ky. 2012) (citing Partin v.

Commonwealth, 918 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Ky. 1996), overruled on other grounds by

Chestnut v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 288 (Ky. 2008)). The task of weighing

the probative value and undue prejudice of proffered evidence is inherently factual

and, therefore, within the discretion of the Trial Court. Ross v. Commonwealth,

455 S.W.3d 899, 910 (Ky. 2015).

             Here, the Estate asserts the jury was likely to be confused or misled by

the Release and Indemnity language in the Agreement. But the Estate does not

point to any testimony, evidence, or argument that emphasized the language or

suggested that it was controlling as to LMC’s liability. Furthermore, the Trial

Court redacted the bolded language excluding liability for injury or death arising

from an agritourism activity, except for the assumption-of-risk language, but the

Trial Court did not redact the Release and Indemnity provision at the Estate’s

request. Under the circumstances, the Estate has not shown the prejudicial effect

of the Agreement substantially outweighed its probative value.

             Along similar lines, the Estate requested an instruction advising the

jury that the Agreement’s Release and Indemnity language was unenforceable.

                                         -13-
The proposed instruction stated that “you may not determine that [LMC] is

immune from lawsuit. However, you may consider the ‘Participant Agreement’

for the purpose of determining whether Mitzi Westover was aware of the risks

associated with participation in the ‘Mega Quest’ ropes course.” The Estate takes

the position that it was entitled to this limiting instruction under KRE 105(a),

which provides as follows:

             When evidence which is admissible as to one (1) party or
             for one (1) purpose but not admissible as to another party
             or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon
             request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and
             admonish the jury accordingly. In the absence of such a
             request, the admission of the evidence by the trial judge
             without limitation shall not be a ground for complaint on
             appeal, except under the palpable error rule.

             As discussed above, the Agreement was relevant and admissible as it

related to the disputed issues of negligence and as a party admission. But the

Agreement was not admissible for LMC to avoid liability under its waiver and

release provisions. Indeed, the construction and enforceability of a written

instrument are matters of law for the Trial Court to decide, not the jury. See

Morganfield National Bank v. Damien Elder & Sons, 836 S.W.2d 893 (Ky. 1992),

and Cinelli v. Ward, 997 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Ky. App. 1998). The Estate points out

that KRE 105 required the Trial Court to give the instruction “upon request.”

Consequently, the Estate argues that the Trial Court’s failure to give the instruction

constitutes reversible error.

                                         -14-
             In denying the request, the Trial Court took the position that KRE 105

required the Estate to move for an admonition to the jury at the time the Agreement

was introduced, and it was not a proper matter for jury instructions. The Kentucky

Supreme Court addressed this issue in St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 140 S.W.3d 510

(Ky. 2004). In that case, a defendant waited until the close of evidence to request a

limiting instruction as to the appropriate purpose of certain evidence pursuant to

KRE 105. The Court held that

             [a]lthough the substantive distinction between
             admonitions and instructions is not always clear or
             closely hewn to, we interpret the first word of KRE
             105(a), i.e., “when,” to mean that the request for a
             “limited purpose” admonition must be made at the time
             that the evidence in question is admitted and no later than
             after the direct examination at which the evidence is
             introduced.

Id. at 559 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

More recently, our Supreme Court reiterated this point, holding that, “[a]lthough it

is within the trial court’s discretion to determine when the admonition should be

given, it must be requested ‘no later than after the direct examination’ where the

evidence is introduced.” Posey v. Commonwealth, 595 S.W.3d 81, 87 (Ky. 2019)

(quoting St. Clair, 140 S.W.3d at 559). Because the Estate failed to request an

admonition at the time the Agreement was introduced, we may only review the

Trial Court’s denial of an instruction for palpable error.

                                         -15-
                In the civil context, CR 61.02 defines “palpable error” as an error that

affects the substantial rights of a party. An appellate court may review an error

and grant appropriate relief, even though the issue is insufficiently raised or

preserved for review, “upon a determination that manifest injustice has resulted

from the error.” “Manifest injustice” means that “if, upon consideration of the

whole case, a substantial possibility does not exist that the result would have been

different, the error will be deemed nonprejudicial.” Martin v. Commonwealth, 207

S.W.3d 1, 3 (Ky. 2006) (interpreting language in RCr5 10.26, which has been

construed “identically” to CR 61.02. See Nami Resources Company, L.L.C. v.

Asher Land and Mineral, Ltd., 554 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Ky. 2018)) (citing Graves v.

Commonwealth, 17 S.W.3d 858, 864 (Ky. 2000)).

                We agree with the Estate that the introduction of the Release and

Indemnity portions of the Agreement posed a risk of confusing the jury. Without a

limiting instruction, the jury had no guidance from the Court to determine how that

language was to be read. The jury may have also been led to believe that it was to

consider the legal issue regarding the enforceability of the Agreement. Under

these circumstances, we believe that the Trial Court would have been justified in

5
    Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.

                                            -16-
giving the Estate’s proposed instruction even though the issue was not raised by a

contemporaneous objection.

              Having said this, the mere possibility of prejudice is not enough to

show manifest injustice. The Estate must show a likelihood – “a reasonable

possibility” – that, but for the failure to give the instruction, a different result

would have occurred. Parker v. Commonwealth, 482 S.W.3d 394, 407-08 (Ky.

2016). “Implicit in the concept of palpable error correction is that the error is so

obvious that the trial court was remiss in failing to act upon it sua sponte.” Nami

Res., 554 S.W.3d at 338 (Ky. 2018) (quoting Lamb v. Commonwealth, 510 S.W.3d

316, 325 (Ky. 2017)).

              Prior to trial, the Estate sought to exclude introduction of the

Agreement as irrelevant. The parties extensively litigated this matter, resulting in

the Trial Court’s ruling that the Release portions of the Agreement were

unenforceable, but that the Agreement was admissible for other purposes. Prior to

introduction of the Agreement, the parties also discussed whether portions of the

Agreement should be redacted. Based on these discussions, the Trial Court

redacted a significant portion of the emphasized language. The Trial Court may

well have concluded that the Estate’s decision not to request an admonition was a

strategic choice to avoid emphasizing the remaining language in the Agreement.

                                           -17-
             At trial, LMC emphasized the language in the Agreement describing

the risks of the activity and addressing the health and safety concerns. But as

noted above, LMC neither argued that the Agreement was controlling as to

liability, nor did it suggest that Westover waived her right to recover for any

negligence on its part. Therefore, we must conclude that the Estate failed to

establish that the Trial Court’s declination to give the limiting instruction

amounted to palpable error.

   IV.    Instructions on LMC’s duties

             The Estate also argues that the Trial Court erred by failing to give

complete jury instructions on the issue of LMC’s duties. The Trial Court’s

instruction advised the jury that LMC had the following duty:

             to exercise ordinary care for the safety of its patrons.
             “Ordinary Care,” as applied to [LMC], means such care
             as you would expect an ordinarily prudent company
             engage[d] in the same type of business to exercise under
             similar circumstances.

             The Estate’s proposed instruction included the “ordinary care”

language, but also stated LMC’s general duty included the following specific

duties:

             to make the condition of the “Mega Quest” ropes course
             reasonably safe; and

                    (1) to discover unreasonable risks of harm
                        associated with the “Mega Quest” ropes course;
                        and either

                                         -18-
                          (a) take active steps to make the risks safe;
                              or

                          (b) give adequate warning of those risks.

             The Estate’s proposed instruction further defined “unreasonable risk”

as:

             one that is recognized by a reasonable company in
             similar circumstances as one that should be avoided or
             minimized, or one that is in fact recognized by [LMC].
             Even if you find that [LMC] adequately warned of the
             risks associated with participation in the “Mega Quest”
             ropes course, you may find that [LMC] failed to exercise
             ordinary care by failing to adopt further precautions
             against those risks, if it was foreseeable that, despite the
             warning, some risk of harm remained.

             The Estate argues that it was entitled to instructions on the specific

duties supporting its cause of action against LMC. A party plaintiff is entitled to

have its theory of the case submitted to the jury if there is any evidence to sustain

it. Clark v. Hauck Mfg. Co., 910 S.W.2d 247, 250 (Ky. 1995), overruled on other

grounds by Martin v. Ohio Cnty. Hosp. Corp., 295 S.W.3d 104 (Ky. 2009).

However, Kentucky law generally requires the use of “bare bones” instructions.

Olfice, Inc. v. Wilkey, 173 S.W.3d 226, 229 (Ky. 2005) (citing Lumpkins v. City of

Louisville, 157 S.W.3d 601, 605 (Ky. 2005)). “Bare bones” instructions are proper

if they correctly advise the jury about “what [it] must believe from the evidence in

order to return a verdict in favor of the party who bears the burden of proof” on

                                         -19-
that issue. Meyers v. Chapman Printing Co., Inc., 840 S.W.2d 814, 824 (Ky.

1992). The question on appeal is whether the allegedly erroneous instruction

misstated the law. Id. at 823.

             In Smith v. Smith, 563 S.W.3d 14, 18 (Ky. 2018), our Supreme Court

held that a single, “ordinary care” jury instruction does not properly instruct the

jury when liability is based upon land classifications or the possessor’s duty based

upon those classifications. Id. But in that case, there was a factual issue as to

whether the plaintiff was a licensee, a public invitee, or a business invitee. Id. at

17-18. Thus, the separate instruction was necessary for the jury to determine the

applicable standard of ordinary care.

             In this case, the Estate argued that LMC’s duties of ordinary care

included duties to make the premises reasonably safe, to discover unreasonable

risks of harm associated with the ropes course, and to take active steps to make

those risks safe or to give adequate warning of those risks. Shelton v. Kentucky

Easter Seals Soc., Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901, 913-14 (Ky. 2013). But as noted in

Shelton, the issue of duty is a purely legal one, while the standard of care is a

factual question. Id. at 914. Here, there was no question that Westover was a

business invitee.

             Although the Estate asserts that LMC breached its duties to discover

unreasonable risks of harm associated with the ropes course, its claims at trial were

                                         -20-
that LMC failed to use ordinary care in the operation of the ropes course and failed

to give Westover adequate warning of the potential risks arising from negligence

by either LMC or Westover. Any additional duties could be further explained

during closing argument. Olfice, Inc., 173 S.W.3d at 230. Since these duties are

adequately covered by the duty of ordinary care, the Trial Court did not abuse its

discretion by denying the Estate’s proffered instruction.

   V.    Admission of Evidence of Hydrocodone in Westover’s urine

             The Estate additionally argues that the Trial Court abused its

discretion by admitting evidence of hydrocodone in Westover’s urine. Prior to

trial, the Estate filed a motion in limine to exclude a toxicology report showing that

Westover had oxycodone and oxymorphone in her blood and hydrocodone in her

urine when she was admitted to the hospital. Based on the toxicology report,

LMC’s expert witness, Dr. William Smock, was prepared to testify that Westover

had levels of oxycodone and hydrocodone in her system, but he was not able to

definitively state that these levels caused any impairment or intoxication. Dr.

Smock stated that Westover had a prescription for oxycodone, and that

oxymorphone is a metabolite of oxycodone. But he could not locate her

prescription for hydrocodone. LMC’s other medical expert, Dr. Greg Davis,

provided similar testimony.

                                         -21-
             The Estate argues that the evidence and testimony should be excluded

because neither physician could state with any reasonable certainty that Westover

was impaired or intoxicated when she undertook the Mega Quest course. The

Estate also contends that LMC sought to use the testimony as improper character

evidence, branding Westover as an illicit drug user. But, as previously noted,

LMC responded that the evidence was relevant because Westover represented that

she was not under the influence of any impairing drugs. The Trial Court agreed

with LMC and denied the Estate’s motion.

             Generally, an expert’s opinion must be couched in terms of

probability or reasonable certainty, and opinions which are expressed using

language such as “possibility” may be properly excluded as speculative. Combs v.

Stortz, 276 S.W.3d 282, 296 (Ky. App. 2009) (citing Schulz v. Celotex Corp., 942

F.2d 204, 208-09 (3d Cir. 1991)). But unlike in Calhoun v. CSX Transp., Inc., No.

2007-CA-001651-MR, 2009 WL 152970, at *13 (Ky. App. Jan. 23, 2009), aff’d in

part, rev’d in part, 331 S.W.3d 236 (Ky. 2011), Drs. Smock and Davis were not

testifying that Westover’s use of opiates caused her to be impaired or contributed

to her injury. They merely testified as to the presence of those substances in her

blood and urine at the time of her death.

             While KRE 404(b) protects against the introduction of extrinsic act

evidence when the evidence is offered solely to prove character, it allows such

                                        -22-
evidence to be introduced for a proper purpose. Burton v. Commonwealth, 300

S.W.3d 126, 136 (Ky. 2009). This evidence was relevant to show that Westover

failed to disclose her use of these substances when she executed the Agreement.

Furthermore, the testimony of Drs. Smock and Davis was subject to vigorous

cross-examination, during which both admitted that there was no evidence that

Westover was impaired.

             The Estate maintains that LMC sought to portray Westover as an

illicit user of hydrocodone. However, Dr. Davis conceded that Westover may have

had a prescription for hydrocodone even though the prescription could not be

located at the time of trial. The Estate also presented evidence that trace amounts

of hydrocodone may have been found in Westover’s prescription for oxycodone.

In addition, the Estate does not point to any evidence, testimony, or argument at

trial suggesting that Westover should be denied relief because of her use of these

drugs. Because the evidence was relevant and not unduly prejudicial, we cannot

find that the Trial Court abused its discretion by allowing evidence and testimony

concerning the presence of hydrocodone in Westover’s urine.

   VI.   Limitation on Cross-Examination

             The Estate also argues that the Trial Court abused its discretion by

limiting its ability to cross-examine LMC witnesses regarding standards and

literature published by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration

                                        -23-
(“OSHA”). At trial, LMC’s owner, Jim Lowry, testified that LMC was not

required to train its staff in first aid or CPR. LMC’s former safety manager,

Kimberly Coleman, also testified that it was her understanding that LMC was not

required to train its employees to the standards set out by OSHA and the

Association for Challenge Course Technology (“ACCT”). When the Estate sought

to cross-examine these witnesses about these standards, LMC responded that the

OSHA standards were only applicable to employees and not participants in the

activity. The Trial Court agreed and precluded the Estate from cross-examining

the witness on this matter.

             The Estate contends that the OSHA standards and literature were

relevant to determine the standard of care expected of an operator of a ropes course

and zip line such as LMC. But while industry standards or manuals can inform the

standard of care that will satisfy a duty, neither establishes the duty itself. Spencer

v. Arnold, No. 2018-CA-000479-MR, 2020 WL 4500588, at *7 (Ky. App. Jul. 24,

2020) (citing Carman v. Dunaway Timber Co., Inc., 949 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Ky.

1997)). As the Trial Court noted, the OSHA regulations and literature specifically

referred to the duties owed to employees, not participants. Furthermore, Kentucky

had not adopted the ACCT standards at the time of Westover’s injuries. Given the

limited relevance of these materials, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion by

restricting the Estate’s cross-examination on these matters.

                                         -24-
   VII. Exclusion of portions of deposition testimony by LMC’s CR 30.02(b)
        representative

             Finally, LMC designated General Manager Jeremiah Heath as its

corporate representative pursuant to CR 30.02(6). Following Heath’s testimony at

trial, the Estate sought to read two portions of Heath’s deposition into the record.

Specifically, the Estate wanted to introduce deposition testimony in which Heath

stated that he had informed LMC employees that they were not allowed to perform

CPR. LMC objected, noting that the Estate had an opportunity to cross-examine

Heath with his deposition testimony. The Trial Court agreed and sustained LMC’s

objection.

             The Estate notes that CR 32.01(b) permits the deposition of a

corporate representative to be “used by an adverse party for any purpose.” The

Estate further notes that the rule permits testimony to be read to the jury even

though the designee is available to testify in person. Lambert v. Franklin Real Est.

Co., 37 S.W.3d 770, 779 (Ky. App. 2000)(citing Kurt A. Philipps, Jr., 6 Kentucky

Practice, CR 32.01 (5th ed. 1995)). However, that language is limited to use of

testimony “admissible under the rules of evidence as though the witness were then

present and testifying.” Hashmi v. Kelly, 379 S.W.3d 108, 112 (Ky. 2012)

(quoting CR 32.01).

             While the rule clearly permitted the Estate to cross-examine Heath

with his prior deposition testimony, we agree with the Trial Court that his

                                         -25-
deposition testimony was not separately admissible after he testified. Use of the

deposition in this manner would have been substantially prejudicial because LMC

would have lacked the opportunity to rebut or explain the testimony without

recalling Heath. See Graves by & Through Graves v. Jones, No. 2019-CA-0880-

MR, 2021 WL 1431851, at *8 (Ky. App. Apr. 16, 2021). Furthermore, the Trial

Court noted that it had sustained several of LMC’s objections during those portions

of Heath’s deposition. Those sustained objections would have further limited the

admissibility of those portions of the deposition. Given these considerations, we

cannot find that the Trial Court abused its discretion by denying the Estate’s

untimely request to read these portions of Heath’s deposition testimony to the jury.

   VIII. Conclusion

             We conclude that the Trial Court’s evidentiary rulings and jury

instructions did not amount to an abuse of discretion. Although the Agreement

was not relevant to prove that Westover or her Estate waived any claim to liability

based on LMC’s negligence, it was relevant and admissible as to the other disputed

issues of negligence. Furthermore, the prejudicial effect of the Agreement did not

substantially outweigh its probative value on these matters. The Release and

Indemnity language in the Agreement was potentially misleading. However, the

Estate did not make a contemporaneous request for an admonition. Therefore, the

                                        -26-
Trial Court’s failure to grant a limiting instruction did not amount to palpable

error.

             The Trial Court’s instructions accurately stated the applicable law and

correctly advised the jury about what it needed to believe from the evidence to

return a verdict in favor of the Estate. We also conclude that the medical evidence

concerning the presence of hydrocodone in Westover’s urine was relevant and not

unfairly prejudicial. Finally, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion by limiting

the Estate’s cross-examination on OSHA standards or by declining to read Heath’s

deposition into the record after he had testified. Consequently, we find no basis to

disturb the jury’s verdict.

             Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:                    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

 Brenton D. Stanley                       Maxwell D. Smith
 Jason Swinney                            Ashley K. Brown
 Louisville, Kentucky                     Betsy R. Catron
                                          William J. Barker II
 Molly B. Stanley                         Lexington, Kentucky
 Louisville, Kentucky

 Kevin C. Burke
 Jamie K. Neal
 Louisville, Kentucky

                                         -27-