In July of 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky decided a case involving a Kentucky car v motorcycle type of case. (See Bryant v. Turney 2013 WL 3559132 (W.D. Ky. 2013)). The plaintiffs hired a Kentucky motorcycle lawyer.
The Kentucky car v. motorcycle accident occurred in June of 2011. The child involved in the accident was a 14 year old girl. A few days after the accident she died from her injuries. At the time of the accident she was a passenger on her stepfather’s motorcycle. A blood and urine test revealed his blood alcohol level was above the legal limit in Kentucky.
At the time of the car v. motorcycle accident, the motorcycle involved was owned by his employer and co-defendant in this case. So, at issue was in part whether or not the defendant corporation could be held responsible for the motorcycle accident? There was some evidence that the defendant did not sell motorcycles at retail. Id. The stepfather actually purchased it. and road it periodically. But, it needed fixing. Also at issue was the drinking habits of the stepfather and who actually knew of them. Further, on the day of the Kentucky car v. motorcycle accident, the stepfather was wearing civilian clothes, and was not on duty. Id.
The plaintiff’s Kentucky car v. motorcycle attorney was trying to get the deep pockets of the defendant corporation on the hook via a negligent entrustment type of claim. Negligent entrustment is a tort where one who entrusts her vehicle to another whom she knows to be inexperienced, careless, or reckless, or given to excessive use of intoxicating liquor while driving, is liable for the natural and probable consequences of the entrustment. Id.
Thus, as to this issue, the case came down to what the boss or bosses of the stepfather knew as to his drinking habits and whether they should have entrusted him with the motorcycle. This was what the plaintiff’s Kentucky car v. motorcycle attorney had to prove. Id. Deposition testimony was taken. What came out was that his bosses did not know of his propensity for intoxication. The stepfather had no prior DUI’s or other traffic violations which would warn anyone of his propsentiy6 of incompetency. Id.
In this case, at this stage, the evidence that came to light were not enough to warrant the granting of summary judgment for the defendant corporation. The plaintiff’s Kentucky car v. motorcycle attorney was also able to get a respondeat superior claim kept in the case in light of the conflicting testimony the court did not dismiss that count as well.
If you have been the subject of a Kentucky car v. motorcycle case, please call and speak to a Kentucky car v. motorcycle attorney at the Law Offices of Andrew Alitowski, P.A. at 888-ASK-ANDREW (888-275-2637) or contact us. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!