Carney v. Galt

ACREE, JUDGE,

CONCURRING:

I am tempted to dissent with regard to the appellee, Galt, by quoting Perry v. Williamson for the principle that, at best, appellant Carney was a licensee and, “[i]f the hazard is obvious then it does not *513involve an unreasonable risk of harm to the licensee.” 824 S.W.2d 869, 874 (Ky. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). But I am compelled to concur with the majority because, counterpoised to such clear jurisprudence, we have McIntosh6 and its progeny.

Frankly, the Supreme Court already has tipped its hand. A majority of our justices read Perry v. Williamson as…