Torts
Torts tests negligence, intentional torts, strict liability, defamation, and damages under Kentucky common law. Kentucky's comparative fault rule and joint-and-several liability doctrine are frequently tested.
Negligence
A plaintiff must prove duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. A landowner owes a reasonable care standard to invitees and licensees, with different rules for trespassers. Res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence when the instrumentality was in defendant's exclusive control and the accident ordinarily does not occur without negligence.
Comparative fault
Kentucky adopted pure comparative negligence in Hilen v. Hays, so a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault, and a plaintiff may recover even at 99 percent fault. Kentucky retains joint and several liability among concurrent tortfeasors, subject to KRS 411.182 allocation of fault among parties and settling actors.
Intentional torts and defamation
Battery requires harmful or offensive contact with intent. Defamation requires a false defamatory statement, publication, fault, and harm; public figures must prove actual malice. Kentucky recognizes invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress with a high threshold.
Worked example
P is 90 percent at fault and D is 10 percent at fault for a collision causing $100,000 in damages. Under pure comparative fault, P recovers $10,000, not zero. If D and another driver were concurrent causes, D may be jointly and severally liable for the full judgment subject to contribution and KRS 411.182 allocation.
Traps
Applying modified comparative fault; assuming joint and several liability is abolished; treating defamation as actionable without fault; forgetting that res ipsa loquitur is an inference, not a presumption.