Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hanik v. Christopher & Banks, Inc.

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 2014No. 2012-SC-000791-WCPublished

1DissentScott, J.

I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion because Hanik was injured in what was undoubtedly an employee parking lot for Christopher & Banks. How could the parking lot have been anything else? This back-of-the-building parking area only allowed access to the enclosed retail stores via locked rear doors accessible only to employees with keys. Anyone else parking there would face an exceptionally long walk around the building to get to the customer entrance. Thus, the parking area placement implicitly designated it as a place for employees to park. Moreover, Christopher & Banks had…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Harlan Collieries Co. v. ShellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1951
  2. Ratliff v. EplingCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1966
  3. Pierson v. Lexington Public LibraryKentucky Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Warrior Coal Co. v. StroudKentucky Supreme Court · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API