Schreiner v. Humana, Inc.

11 Citing cases

  1. Altman v. Cbocs, Inc.

    940 F. Supp. 2d 560 (W.D. Ky. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    “Whether a natural hazard like ice or snow is obvious depends upon the unique facts of each case.” Schreiner v. Humana, Inc., 625 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Ky.1981). Upon consideration of the record in the present case, the Court finds that a genuine issue exists as to whether the snow and ice on the porch was an open and obvious danger.

  2. Powers v. Tirupathi Hospitality, LLC

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1-JGW (E.D. Ky. Jan. 26, 2011)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that "the Kentucky Supreme Court intended for its decision in McIntosh to apply to all premises owner liability claims, including cases involving purportedly open and obvious natural outdoor hazards"

    The question of whether "a natural hazard like ice or snow is obvious depends upon the unique facts of each case." Schreiner v. Humana, Inc., 625 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Ky. 1981). A condition is "obvious" if "both the condition and the risk are apparent to and would be recognized by a reasonable man in the position of the visitor exercising ordinary perception, intelligence and judgment."

  3. Garrity v. Wal-Mart Stores E., Ltd.

    288 F.R.D. 395 (W.D. Ky. 2012)   Cited 8 times
    Finding genuine issue of material fact as to whether the black ice on which the plaintiff slipped was open and obvious

    The courts have also held that " whether a natural hazard like ice or snow is obvious depends on the unique facts of each case." Schreiner v. Humana, Inc., 625 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Ky.1981). In this case, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that the ice upon which Mr. Garrity slipped was open and obvious.

  4. Schmidt v. Intercontinental Hotels Grp. Res., Inc.

    850 F. Supp. 2d 663 (E.D. Ky. 2012)   Cited 5 times
    In Schmidt, a hotel employee allegedly directed a conference attendee to exit the hotel to park her car and reenter via “Entrance H.” 850 F.Supp.2d at 664.

    The Court does not decide whether the photos would be admissible, but the Court deems them sufficiently authenticated under Rule 56. As Kentucky has long held, “[W]hether a natural hazard like ice or snow is obvious depends on the unique facts of each case.” Schreiner v. Humana, Inc., 625 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Ky.1981) (reversing summary judgment on open and obvious in part because of “[plaintiff's] testimony that the ice was not visible and the walkway appeared clear”); id. (“[C]onstruing the facts more favorably for [plaintiff], [the court] find[s] a genuine issue exists as to whether defendant knew of a dangerous condition which was not obvious to [plaintiff].”). Other cases recognize that whether a hazard is “open and obvious” is a fact question properly submitted to the jury if there is a genuine factual dispute.

  5. Harned v. HD Development Properties, L.P.

    CIVIL ACTION 5:05-CV-249-M (W.D. Ky. Jun. 28, 2007)

    The Defendants assert that they owed no duty to the Plaintiff because the hazard was as obvious to her as it was to them. However, the obviousness of the natural hazard turns upon the facts of each case. Schreiner v. Humana, Inc., 625 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Ky. 1981). Here, the Plaintiffs, while generally aware of the hazardous conditions in the Paducah area at the time, maintain that the Defendants' attempt to clear the parking lot made it appear clear of ice and snow and thus, not hazardous.

  6. Kelly v. U.S. Department of Agriculture

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 05-CV-687-KKC (E.D. Ky. Sep. 13, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    When a plaintiff is as aware of the condition as the landowner is, the rule in Manis requires dismissal of the claim; if there is a dispute as to whether or not the condition was open and obvious a genuine issue of material fact exists precluding summary judgment. Schreiner v. Humana, Inc., 625 S.W.2d 580 (Ky. 1982). Plaintiff's injury occurred on wooden steps that were exposed to the elements, and the steps were visibly covered in moss and leaves. This condition is apparent from the pictures submitted by Plaintiff (Rec. No. 11, Exhibit 9). The undisputed facts in the record lead to no other conclusion than that the condition which caused Plaintiff's fall was open and obvious. "In short, a possessor of business premises is not liable for injuries suffered by another person due to an open and obvious condition on the premises."

  7. Carter v. Bullitt Host, LLC

    471 S.W.3d 288 (Ky. 2015)   Cited 78 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that Shelton "established that foreseeability applies to breach of the general duty of ordinary care"

    Thus, the case must be examined through the lens of contributory negligence.And a subsequent case, Schreiner v. Humana, Inc., 625 S.W.2d 580 (Ky. 1981), focused on the part of Manis that acknowledged that the outdoor natural hazard had to be obvious to the plaintiff in order to find her at fault and thus negate a defendant's duty. Mrs. Schreiner was dropped off in front of her doctor's office on her way to an appointment.

  8. Cobb v. Kamer

    NO. 2012-CA-001107-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2014)

    On the contrary, whether a natural hazard like ice and snow is obvious depends upon the unique facts of each case." Schreiner v. Humana, Inc., Ky., 625 S.W.2d 580, 581 (1982).Estep v. B.F. Saul Real Estate Inv. Trust, 843 S.W.2d 911, 913 (Ky. App. 1992).

  9. Barker v. Northcutt

    NO. 2012-CA-001629-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Sep. 20, 2013)

    "Whether a natural hazard like ice or snow is obvious depends upon the unique facts of each case." Schreiner v. Humana, Inc., 625 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Ky. 1981). Our Kentucky Supreme Court discussed the open and obvious doctrine in relation to ice and our prior case law and its application in PNC Bank, Kentucky, Inc. v. Green, 30 S.W.3d 185, 187 (Ky. 2000):

  10. Reece v. Dixie Warehouse and Cartage Co.

    188 S.W.3d 440 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 67 times

    Thus, the testimony presented by Dixie Warehouse indicated that it was not acquiescing as to the duty to warn, but did so out of caution. Schreiner v. Humana, Inc., 625 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Ky. 1981). Because of the conflicting testimony on the obviousness of the drop-off as a hazard and Patricia's knowledge thereof, the issue of whether the drop-off was open and obvious was a proper question for the jury.