In January of 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky decided a case involving a security guard at a manufacturing and distribution facility who sustained a personal injury. (See Young v. SCA Personal Care, Inc., 2013 WL 253149 (W.D. Ky. 2013)). The plaintiff in this Louisville personal injury case was injured on March 6, 2011. The defendant is in the business of developing, producing and marketing adult personal care products. The storage space and site is very large. The plaintiff worked for the company as a security guard. The company was to carry workers’ compensation insurance. Id. The Louisville personal injury lawyer was contacted after the plaintiff injured himself.
The plaintiff had worked for the company almost one year when he was injured. The plaintiff sustained a personal injury when a pallet fell on his head and neck. As a result, the plaintiff hired his Louisville personal injury lawyer and filed suit on February 29, 2012. Plaintiff in his personal injury lawsuit asserted claims for negligence and punitive damages. The defendant removed the Louisville personal injury lawsuit from the state to federal court. Id. Defendant also pled that plaintiff’s work related personal injury claims were barred by Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act. Id. The difference between a personal injury case and a worker’s compensation case can be explained to you by a Louisville personal injury lawyer.
The court noted that “the purpose of the provision of KRS 342.610 that a contractor is liable for compensation benefits to an employee of a subcontractor who does not secure compensation benefits is to prevent subcontracting to irresponsible people.” (cites omitted). Further, “if a defendant qualifies as a contractor, ‘it has no liability in tort to an injured employee of a subcontractor’ once worker’s compensation benefits are secured.” (cites omitted).
In this personal injury case, the court held that the defendant’s facility was in the business of safety and securing its own premises. The defendant was in the business of adult personal care projects but also noted that the security services were not merely beneficial or incidental to the work of the defendant. “Kentucky case law is clear that activities beyond one’s primary business objective may qualify under section 342.610.” (cites omitted).
Thus the court granted the motion for summary judgment by the defendant but also granted the motion to supplement their response to the plaintiff. This part of the order had to do with a discovery dispute and was not pertinent to the underlying issue of personal injury versus worker’s compensation.
If you have been the subject of a Louisville personal injury case, please call and speak to a Louisville personal injury lawyer 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!!!