WILLIAM S. ALBRIGHT APPELLANT
LINDSEY CHILDERS, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CAMERON PEARSON; LINDSEYCHILDERS, AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF A.P., A MINOR; LINDSEY CHILDERS, AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF C.P., A MINOR; LINDSEY CHILDERS, AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF E.P., A MINOR; AMANDA WAITS; AND KYLE PEARSON APPELLEES AND HARDSHELL TACTICAL, LLC APPELLANT
LINDSEY CHILDERS, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CAMERON PEARSON; LINDSEY CHILDERS, AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF A.P., A MINOR; LINDSEY CHILDERS, AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF C.P., A MINOR; LINDSEY CHILDERS, AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF E.P., A MINOR; AMANDA WAITS; KYLE PEARSON; WILLIAM ALBRIGHT; AND BASU PROPERTIES, LLC
FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE MITCHELL PERRY, JUDGE
ACTION NOS. 16-CI-003155, 16-CI-003155
FOR APPELLANT, WILLIAM S. ALBRIGHT: Gregg E. Thornton Maxwell
Smith Lexington, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLANT, HARDSHELL
TACTICAL, LLC: Melissa Thompson Richardson Lexington,
Kentucky Ryan Becker Louisville, Kentucky ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLANT, WILLIAM S. ALBRIGHT: Gregg E. Thornton Lexington,
Kentucky ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLANT, HARDSHELL TACTICAL,
LLC: Melissa Thompson Richardson Lexington, Kentucky
FOR APPELLEE, LINDSEY CHILDERS: Martin Pohl Louisville,
Kentucky Danielle Blandford Louisville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR
APPELLEE, BASU PROPERTIES, LLC: Charles H. Cassis Aaron John
Silletto Louisville, Kentucky ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLEES:
Aaron John Silletto Louisville, Kentucky
BEFORE: D. LAMBERT, MAZE, AND NICKELL, JUDGES.
appeal arises from a Jefferson Circuit Court's denial of
Appellants', William Albright and Hardshell Tactical,
LLC, motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting immunity
under KRS 503.085. After a careful review of the
record, we are obligated to reverse based on the reasons
stated in this opinion.
8, 2015, two brothers, Cameron Pearson and Kyle Pearson, were
engaged in a physical altercation over a handgun in a parking
lot. The parking lot was located outside Hardshell Tactical,
LLC. Hardshell is a gun store located in Louisville, and at
the time of the incident was co-owned by William Albright.
Albright heard a gunshot and then exited Hardshell and
approached the brothers who were wrestling over the gun.
Albright began ordering the two brothers to drop the gun.
During the struggle, at least two shots were fired by the
brothers. Albright ultimately shot at the two brothers. This
resulted in injuries to Kyle Pearson and the death of Cameron
was indicted by a Jefferson County grand jury on counts of
murder and assault in the first degree. Albright filed a
motion to dismiss the criminal charges claiming immunity
under KRS 503.085. The court held a hearing on the issue of
immunity and found that Albright was immune from criminal
before the criminal charges were dismissed, a civil action
was filed against Albright alleging negligent use of force.
This civil suit was brought by Lindsey Childers, as
administratrix of the Estate of Cameron Pearson and as Next
Friend and Guardian of Minors A.P., C.P., and E.P.; Kyle
Pearson and Amanda Waits (Appellees). Albright argued that
because the criminal court found he was immune under KRS
503.085, this immunity extended to all potential civil
liability arising from the same use of force. The civil trial
court denied Albright's and Hardshell's motions for
judgment on the pleadings. These appeals follow.
at the outset, there are two separate appeals which have not
been consolidated but "are to be heard with." As
the circuit court case is the same, and both involve the same
arguments and issues, we will address both appeals with one
judgment on the pleadings "should be granted if it
appears beyond doubt that the nonmoving party cannot prove
any set of facts that would entitle [him or her] to
relief." City of Pioneer Village v. Bullitt County
ex rel. Bullitt Fiscal Court, 104 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Ky,
2003) (internal citations omitted). This court reviews a
denial of a judgment on the pleadings de novo.
Schultz v. General Elec. Healthcare Financial Services
Inc., 360 S.W.3d 171, 177 (Ky. 2012).
standard of review of the trial court's probable cause
immunity determination is not de novo. Commonwealth v.
Lemons,437 S.W.3d 708, 715 (Ky. 2014). Rather, the
appellate court reviews whether there was substantial basis
in fact to support the trial court's conclusion that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Id. at
714-15. On the other hand, when interpreting a statute and
looking at legislative intent, we look first to the language
of the statute, giving the words their plain and ordinary
meaning. Osborne v. Commonwealth, 185 S.W.3d 645,
648-49 (Ky. 2006). But where a statute is unambiguous,
extrinsic evidence of legislative intent and public policy is
not admissible. Lewis v. Jackson Energy Co-op.
Corp., 189 S.W.3d 87, 94 (Ky. 2005). Because the
construction and ...