# Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Smolcic

> Kentucky Supreme Court · August 26, 2004 · 142 S.W.3d 128

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748485

## Case

- **Full name:** LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT; Ron Herrington, Individually; Jim Woods, Individually; Walter Hall, Jr., Individually; And Howard Huggins, Individually, Appellants, v. Dora SMOLCIC; Bojan Jurdana; Vesna Vasicek; Davor Vasicek; Marijana Meculj; Cara Rodgers; And Riverfront Group, Inc., Appellees; Dora Smolcic JURDANA; Bojan Jurdana; Davor Vasicek; And Marijana Meculj, Appellants, v. Cara RODGERS; The Riverfront Group, Inc.; And Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Appellees
- **Court:** Kentucky Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 26, 2004
- **Citations:** 142 S.W.3d 128; 2004 Ky. LEXIS 182; 2004 WL 1906882
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Keller
- **Judges:** Johnstone, Cooper, Graves, Lambert, Stumbo, Wintersheimer, Keller
- **Cited by:** 72 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748485

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government was entitled to sovereign immunity
- finding that Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government was immune from suit
- noting that counties are “an arm or political subdivision of the Commonwealth.” (citing Monroe Cty. v. Rouse, 274 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Ky. 1955))
- finding Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government immune from suit

## Opinion text

Opinion by
Justice KELLER,
concurring in part and dissenting in part
I agree with the majority opinion that LFUCG’s liability was extinguished by its assertion of sovereign immunity, but for reasons expressed in my dissent in Jefferson County Commonwealth, Attorney’s Office v. Kaplan, 1 I do not believe that LFUCG’s immunity precluded fault from being apportioned against it if justified by the evidence. “The majority’s contrary holding ... ‘violates the main purpose of comparative fault by improperly subjecting the [other] defendants to liability in excess of their proportion of fault.’ ” 2 Accordingly, I dissent as to Part IV (Apportionment) of the majority opinion.
. Ky., 65 S.W.3d 916 (2002) (Keller, J., dissenting).
. Id. at 928 (Keller, J., dissenting) (quoting Northland Ins. Co. v. Truckstops Corp. of America, 914 F.Supp. 216 (N.D.I11.1995)).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748485. Public record. Not legal advice.