## Facts

- Alvin Stinnett, Jr. worked as a farm laborer for Dr. Earl S. Buchele on Buchele’s farm.
- Stinnett was assigned to repair and coat a barn roof by nailing down loosened edges and applying a coating with a paint roller.
- While performing the work, Stinnett fell from the roof and suffered severe injuries.
- In a separate workers’ compensation proceeding, benefits were denied because agricultural workers were exempt from coverage.
- Stinnett brought a tort negligence action alleging Buchele (1) failed to comply with Kentucky occupational safety regulations incorporating 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105 (safety nets for work above 25 feet), and (2) failed to provide a reasonably safe workplace and safety equipment.
- The evidentiary record in the tort case consisted of proof from the workers’ compensation proceeding, treated by the parties and the court as the record for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged noncompliance with Kentucky occupational safety regulations incorporating 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105 could support tort liability for Stinnett’s fall.
2. Whether Buchele breached a common-law duty to use ordinary care to provide a reasonably safe workplace and equipment for the roof-coating work.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed summary judgment for Buchele.
- The court held the cited OSHA-based safety-net regulation was not shown to apply to the farm roof-repair activity and did not create an independent civil cause of action.
- The court held the record contained no triable evidence that Buchele failed to exercise ordinary care, given Stinnett’s experience and equal (or superior) knowledge of the risks of the task.
- The court did not reach Buchele’s contributory negligence argument because the absence of evidence of employer negligence was dispositive.

## Legal Principles

- An employer is not an insurer of employee safety and is not required to guarantee an absolutely safe workplace; the duty is ordinary care to provide a reasonably safe place and tools for work.
- The rationale for imposing workplace-safety duties on employers weakens where the employee’s means of knowledge of the danger is equal to the employer’s.
- Kentucky occupational safety and health statutes and related regulations preserve existing common-law rights but do not enlarge them by creating a standalone employee tort claim for regulatory violations.
- Summary judgment is proper where the record, viewed under the governing negligence standard, shows no evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could infer breach by the employer.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the employer because the OSHA-based safety-net standard did not supply a separate tort theory on these facts and the record showed no evidence that the employer failed to use ordinary care where the employee was experienced and aware of the risks of working on a barn roof.


Stinnett v. Buchele, 598 S.W.2d 469 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980)