Kentucky Court of Appeals
Punitive Damages – Employer Authorization or Ratification
Allgeier v MV Transportation, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2012 WL 1649089 (Ky.App. May 11, 2012), petition for rehearing denied July 5, 2012, motion for discretionary review granted December 12, 2012 (2012-SC-462-DG).

The trial Court had granted summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages. There was no question but that the employee/bus driver failed to follow policy in assisting with a disabled elderly woman disembark from the bus. Under KRS 411.184(3), an employer cannot be held liable for punitive damages based on the conduct of an employee unless it is shown that the employer authorized, ratified or should have anticipated the conduct in question. The Court of Appeals reversed, opining that the evidence was sufficient to meet the statutory standard. The opinion unfortunately treats ratification and authorization as one and the same, which makes the opinion less helpful as a precedent that it could be. At the heart of the Court’s decision, however, was 1) training employees to deny fault in the event of an accident, and 2) failure to train employees on all safety policies. The real point is that the employer didn’t take safety seriously and was lax in training, or so a jury could have found. It is here that the Court missed the point. If punitive damages are assessed for gross negligence on the part of management, then KRS 411.184(3) does not apply because punitive damages are assessed based on the employer’s own conduct. In fact, in dealing with the cross-appeal, the Court observed that such claims are independent of respondeat superior.

Kentucky Court of Appeals
Negligent Hiring
Allgeier v MV Transportation, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2012 WL 1649089 (Ky.App. May 11, 2012), petition for rehearing denied July 5, 2012.

At the time the defendant’s employee/bus driver was hired she was being treated for alcoholism, and she lied on her application. She testified that two of her superiors knew that, and given the employer’s zero tolerance policy it could be found that had she been truthful she would not have been hired. There was no evidence that alcohol was related to the accident, so causation should have been suspect. The opinion does not really deal with the issue, and the panel may have misunderstood causation in these cases. However, in this case the driver was not tested as was required, so the panel may have felt the need to allow some leeway on this point. The Court declined to adopt a rule rendering irrelevant a negligent hiring claim where the employer admits scope and course of employment. The main complaint was from the employer in terms of the prejudicial effect of the evidence concerning the employee’s alcoholism. It does not appear that the employer sought bifurcation, so the Court did not have that issue before it.

Kentucky Court of Appeals
Trespass to Chattels
Ingram Trucking, Inc. v Allen, 372 S.W.3d 870, 2012 WL 1649095 (Ky.App. May 11, 2012), petition for rehearing denied July 9, 2012.

Trespass to chattel is an intentional tort whereby the tortfeasor disposes of or intermeddles with the personal property of another. The tort has no application to a claim for damage to an automobile. The argument was made in an effort to obtain a longer of statute of limitations.