Lexington Probate and Estate Administration Law Blog

Finding out that there is legal action pending after a semitruck crash is a hard spot to be placed in. For many people who are facing these types of cases, the focus is on trying to get them over with as quickly as possible without having to spend an exorbitant amount of money to do so.

One option that you have in these cases is to go through mediation with the victim of the crash. This puts you and the other party in negotiations to try to work out a settlement so that you don't have to put the case in the hands of a jury that might see the case in favor of the alleged victim.

Understanding the case against you is one of the most important steps when you are facing a claim for a semitruck crash. The complainant is going to try everything possible to make the accident look like your fault. There are some cases that aren't the trucker's fault at all. These are the ones that are particularly troublesome.

Oftentimes, the person who was injured in the accident will claim that the trucker was distracted, fatigued or using unsafe driving practices. These might not be the case at all, but they do sound good in the claim for compensation.

When you get online, you probably don't think much about what you are doing. One thing that you need to think about is who is going to get your digital assets when you pass away. These are things like your PayPal account, your online bank accounts, your social media accounts and your emails. All of these are probably important to you and you don't want them to just wither away when you pass away.

Creating a digital will is something that most people just don't think about. Sadly, this means that accounts with family pictures and videos might be inaccessible after your death. Just to be clear -- it isn't enough to just share your password with your loved ones. You need to have clear documentation in place that will give them the power to take over your online accounts when you die.

"Despite the frequency of opinions on the subject from this Court, the law of sovereign immunity, and the related doctrines of governmental immunity, official immunity, and qualified official immunity, is still difficult to apply, no doubt in part because of the large number of decisions on the subject. Attitudes about the propriety of immunity for the state and its subdivision, government agencies and their employees, and government-created entities have shifted back and forth over time and personnel changes on the Court." Ky. River Foothills Dev. Council, Inc. v. Phirman, 504 S.W.3d 11, 16, (Ky. 2016); citing Comair, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Corp., 295 S.W.3d 91, 94 (Ky. 2009).

This statement by the Kentucky Supreme Court illustrates the evolving Kentucky law regarding sovereign and governmental immunity. In Comair the Supreme Court attempted to clarify any confusion in the law and establish a more certain framework to resolve the question concerning the types of businesses and organizations entitled to immunity. In Comair, the Supreme Court set forth a two prong test. First, one must look to see who created the entity in question. Comair, 295 S.W.3d at 99. Second, and most importantly, does the entity provide a governmental function? Id. To satisfy the second prong, there are two elements that need to be addressed. Whether the entity's function is "governmental", and whether the matter is of a "statewide" concern.