# Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh

> Kentucky Supreme Court · August 26, 2010 · 319 S.W.3d 385

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749191

## Case

- **Full name:** KENTUCKY RIVER MEDICAL CENTER; And Jackson Hospital Corporation, Appellants, v. Irene McINTOSH, Appellee
- **Court:** Kentucky Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 26, 2010
- **Citations:** 319 S.W.3d 385; 2010 Ky. LEXIS 215; 2010 WL 3374239
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Schroder
- **Judges:** Noble, Minton, Abramson, Cunningham, Venters, Schroder, Scott
- **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/9749191

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that although members of the public are familiar with hospital entrances, it does not mean it is within their common knowledge to determine whether the emergency room entrance at issue was safe
- noting the common view that there is no duty when a danger is open and obvious because “the basis for placing a duty on the land possessor—his superior knowledge—does not exist”
- affirming a trial court’s decision to allow a safety engineer’s testimony on OSHA regulations for emergency room entrances after a paramedic tripped at a hospital

## Opinion text

SCHRODER, J.,
dissenting:
Because I believe the open and obvious doctrine concerns a question of duty, I respectfully dissent. The other hospitals McIntosh served had no curbs to trip over. Appellants had a curb, which contained no building code or OSHA violations, and was open and obvious. It appears the Appellants are being held liable for a breach of a duty: a duty to build its emergency entrance like other hospitals in an undefined area. Until this decision, there was no such duty. Until today, a landowner or possessor of land could not be held liable to invitees who were injured by open and obvious dangers. Now, even though the alleged danger is open and obvious (like snow or ice on a sidewalk), if the possessor can anticipate the harm to an invitee, the possessor has a duty to fix the condition, or to somehow give additional warnings. In this case, to avoid future liability, the hospital will need to build the same type of entrance ramp as some unknown group of hospitals. This is an unwise and unneces-saiy change in the law in the Commonwealth.
SCOTT, J., joins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749191. Public record. Not legal advice.