Legal Opinion · Dissent

Manalapan Mining Co., Inc. v. Lunsford

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided November 6, 2006No. 2005-SC-0626-WC, 2005-SC-0628-WCPublished

1DissentScott, Justice

In Alcan Foil Products v. Huff, 2 S.W.3d 96 (Ky.1999), and subsequent cases, this court has viewed a hearing loss due to hazardous noise exposure to be a gradual injury for which a rule of discovery triggers the notice and limitations requirements. KRS 342.185 contains a two-year statute of limitations for an injury but makes no reference whatsoever to a two-year period of repose. Nonetheless, the majority has determined that Kyle Luns-ford’s hearing loss claim must be dismissed because it was filed more than two years after his last exposure to hazardous noise. I dissent.

Lunsford received 37…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Alcan Foil Products v. HuffKentucky Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Brown-Forman Corp. v. UpchurchKentucky Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Hill v. Sextet Mining Corp.Kentucky Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Coslow v. General Electric Co.Kentucky Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Randall Co. v. PendlandCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1989

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API