Case File
Did a manufacturer who contracted for the delivery and transportation of raw materials qualify as a “contractor” entitled to “up-the-ladder” immunity from tort liability? Because hauling limestone was necessary to enable the manufacturer to continue in business, the answer was yes. Simply Research have access to the full text of the case.
Case
Minova USA Inc. v. Jolly, No.2024-SC-0169-DG (Ky. 02/19/26)
What Happened?
While making a delivery of limestone to a manufacturer in his work with a contractor, a worker collided with a 700-pound metal cart, causing him “severe injuries.”
The cart belonged to an employee of a staffing agency. The worker sought workers’ compensation benefits from the contractor and also brought a tort action against it.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the contractor. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the contractor did not qualify for up-the-ladder immunity.
The contractor appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Under Kentucky law, when a worker suffers a work-related injury, his recovery from the employer is limited to workers’ compensation benefits. The injured worker is not entitled to tort damages from the employer or its employees for work-related injuries. Under the doctrine of “up-the-ladder” immunity, the term “employer” is construed broadly to cover not only the worker’s direct employer but also a contractor utilizing the worker’s direct employer as a subcontractor.
A contractor or his carrier who becomes liable for workers’ compensation may recover the amount from the subcontractor, and a “contractor” refers to someone who contracts to have work performed of a kind that is a regular or recurrent part of the work of the trade, business, occupation, or profession of such person.
The Kentucky Supreme Court interprets the word “regular” as referring to the type of work that is a performed in the customary, usual, or normal part of the owner’s trade, business, occupation, or profession, pet General Elec. Co. v. Cain, 236 S.W. 3d 579 (Ky. 2007). Under Daniels v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 933 S.W. 2d 821 (Ky. App. 1996).
What the Kentucky Supreme Court Said
According to the court, the delivery of limestone filler was “regular and recurrent,” but the question in the case was whether the worker performed work that the contractor or a similar business would perform or be expected to perform with employees.
The court explained that employees of contractors hired to perform major or specialized demolition, construction, or renovation projects generally are not a premises owner’s statutory employees unless the owner or the owners of similar businesses would normally expect or be expected to handle such projects with employees. Employees of contractors hired to perform routine repairs or maintenance that the owner or owners of similar businesses would normally be expected to handle with employees generally are viewed as being statutory employees.
Looking to the relevant contract between the manufacturer and the contractor, the Kentucky Supreme Court explained that the contractor’s direct involvement with the delivery and transportation process, as reflected in the provisions of its contract with the manufacturer, demonstrated that the transport, receipt, and unloading of raw material constituted “part of the work” of its business and differentiated the case from previous decisions dealing with the transport and delivery of goods incident, ancillary, or auxiliary to an agreement of purchase and sale.
Thus, the court determined that “up-the-ladder” immunity applied, and that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing judgment in favor of the contractor.
Verdict: The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded for reinstatement of the trial court’s judgment.
Takeaway
The purpose of Kentucky’s up-the-ladder immunity is not to shield owners or contractors from potential tort liability but to assure that contractors and subcontractors provider workers’ compensation coverage.
