It’s a new year, which means plenty of people are resolving to give up or lessen their consumption of alcohol. But no matter how many resolutions are made, establishments that serve alcohol will still run into their fair share of problems with people who have had too much to drink. If such an individual causes some kind of harm, the retailer could be held accountable under dram shop laws. Here’s what you need to know about dram shop liability—and how to avoid it.

There’s an old adage that the person who represents themself in court has a fool for a client. While we are not here to add any insult to the injuries suffered by legal DIYers, that particular line of reasoning may prove instructive in more areas than just court. Legal agreements and transactions may seem simple enough to handle on one’s own, but they can often get complex in a hurry. There’s never a wrong time to consult an attorney, and doing so at the beginning of a transaction can save a mountain of headache at later stages.

There is more than one kind of immunity, but amidst all the coronavirus talk, it can be easy to forget that not all of them involve white blood cells and Vitamin C. The legal doctrines of qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, and its similar-but-slightly different successor governmental immunity are often misrepresented, misconstrued, and confused. The distinctions, however, are important to understand the many complex and controversial issues that find their way into public discourse.

As all attorneys know, maintaining an ethically sound practice is one of the fundamental requirements of the legal profession. Nowhere is this requirement more pronounced than in the representation of a family-owned business, which typically presents a variety of complex dynamics for the attorney’s consideration. Dealing with multiple familial owners—as well as the emotional ties between those owners—can often place lawyers in a difficult position, especially from an ethical perspective. However, as long as careful practices are adhered to, many potential ethical pitfalls can be easily avoided.

As defense attorneys, we are often hired by an individual or entity’s insurance company to zealously defend the interests of their insured. The relationship between insurer, insured and defense counsel can oftentimes be confusing and is riddled with potential landmines for the well-intentioned attorney. As such, candid communication with the insured about this relationship is of paramount importance.

Recently the Kentucky Supreme Court addressed liability issues facing Kentucky horsemen when offering riding horses for sale. The sale of horses for riding use is a common facet of the horse business in Kentucky, and test rides are frequently part of the sale process. A test ride, however, opens the door to unique liability issues.  In 1996, the General Assembly enacted the Farm Animals Activity Act (“FAAA”), which dictated that the inherent risks associated with farm animals, including horses, are beyond the reasonable control of farm animal activity sponsors, professionals, or other involved persons. However, this statute left several exceptions permitting liability on the table. Until recently, no published case law in Kentucky provided guidance for the application of these exceptions. In August 2018, the Kentucky Supreme Court clarified the FAAA exceptions involved with a potential buyer riding a sales horse in Daugherty v. Tabor.

As medical advancements and patients in need of medical care continue to increase, the role of mid-level practitioners becomes even more crucial.  While there have been many turns of phrase for these medical professionals, the term “mid-level practitioner” is meant to encompass those non-physician providers, which include advanced practice nurses and physician assistants, among others. In Kentucky, there has been a shortage of primary care providers, which is particularly problematic in the state’s many rural areas.  This in turn has led to the push for more autonomy to these integral medical providers. While there are many reasons why this development is an improvement for patients and providers alike, this also leads to more liability exposure. 

We’ve all been there. An opposing expert lacks the proper credentials, utilized shoddy techniques in forming the opinion and/or provides irrelevant opinion testimony and you feel compelled to file a Daubert challenge.  After all, Plaintiff’s case will fall apart if you are successful in excluding the expert. 

2017 has been a banner year for developments in healthcare litigation in Kentucky. While the focus has largely been on medical review panels, another issue of importance has been that of negligent credentialing claims brought against hospitals. Nationwide, states have been split on whether this cause of action is recognized. Lost in the recent rulings regarding medical review panels was the Kentucky Supreme Court’s quiet release of its opinion on November 2, 2017 striking down negligent credentialing as a separate and new cause of action against hospitals. This opinion provides clarity for hospitals facing claims of negligence related to physicians with staff privileges at their facilities and also provides guidance for counsel to properly defend cases with credentialing allegations.

The world of mediation can be a strange place for those expecting a more adversarial process. Rather than act on behalf of either party, the mediator plays a role in the middle, acting as a buffer between the parties to bring them together for mutual benefit. Just as with the conductor of an orchestra, the mediator is there not to create something herself, but to guide the others to do so. A mediator is not only a conductor or a referee, however, and the way a mediator works within the role can add significant value to a mediation.