 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Colvin v. Sixty-Eight Liquors9/14/2001
be reviewed de novo[,]" we reject the trial court's interpretation of KRS 413.421 and adopt our own. See Bob Hook Chevrolet Isuzu v. Commonwealth, Transportation Cabinet, Ky., 983 S.W.2d 488, 490 (1998).
Concerning the issue of indemnity, we hold that Sixty-Eight Liquors clearly has a valid claim against Colvin for indemnity relative to claims made by injured third persons against Sixty-Eight Liquors. DeStock, 993 S.W.2d at 958; also, KRS 413.241(3). However, Sixty-Eight Liquors has no indemnity claim against Colvin under the statute for any liability it may have to Colvin due to his injuries and death. Indemnity has been defined as "the right of a party who is secondarily liable to recover from the party who is primarily liable for reimbursement of expenditures paid to a third party[.]" BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 772 (7th Ed. 1999). Furthermore, KRS 413.241(3) clearly states that the buyer/driver's primary liability applies to injuries suffered by third persons. Surely, the General Assembly did not intend to allow a minor to have a valid claim under these circumstances, yet also provide the dram shop with a right of indemnity on that claim.
The judgment of the Marion Circuit Court is reversed, and this case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BARBER, JUDGE, CONCURS.
MILLER, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT.
Page 1 2 3 4 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|