MICHAEL A. YANERO AND SHERI L. YANERO, AS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS OF RYAN YANERO, A MINOR v. ALAN DAVIS; JEFFREY BECKER; ROBERT STEWART; KENTUCKY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND RYAN COKER (A MINOR)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
September 3, 1999; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1998-CA-003083-MR
MICHAEL A. YANERO AND
SHERI L. YANERO, AS PARENTS AND
NEXT FRIENDS OF RYAN YANERO, A MINOR
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JOHN POTTER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 97-CI-005972
v.
ALAN DAVIS; JEFFREY BECKER;
ROBERT STEWART; KENTUCKY HIGH
SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, AND
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
AND RYAN COKER (A MINOR)
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
KNOPF, MILLER, AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE: Michael A. Yanero and Sheri L. Yanero, as parents
and next friends of Ryan Yanero, a minor (collectively referred
to as “appellants”), bring this appeal from a December 2, 1998,
summary judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court.
We affirm.
The facts are these: On April 17, 1997, Ryan Yanero was
participating in batting practice in the Waggener High School
gymnasium.
Ryan played on Waggener's Junior Varsity Baseball
Team.
During batting practice, Ryan was struck in the temporal
area of his head by a baseball pitched by a teammate, co-appellee
Ryan Coker.
Ryan Yanero was not wearing a batting helmet and
suffered traumatic brain injury.
Appellants filed the instant
action in the Jefferson Circuit Court against two junior varsity
baseball coaches--Alan Davis (Davis) and Jeffrey Becker (Becker),
Waggener High School's Athletic Director--Robert Stewart
(Stewart), the Jefferson County Board of Education (Board of
Education), and the Kentucky High School Athletic Association
(KHSAA).
Therein, appellants alleged various theories of
negligence against appellees.
Appellees answered and filed a
third-party complaint against the pitcher, Coker.
Appellees
filed separate motions for summary judgment upon the grounds of
immunity.
On December 2, 1998, the Jefferson Circuit Court
concluded that appellees were entitled to “sovereign immunity”
and granted their motions for summary judgment.
This appeal
followed.
Appellants contend that the circuit court committed
reversible error by granting appellees' motions for summary
judgment.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there exists no
material issue of fact and movants are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.
Ky. R. Civ. P. 56; Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel
Service Center, Inc., Ky., 807 S.W.2d 476 (1991).
In the case at
hand, we agree with the circuit court that appellees are cloaked
with immunity and are shielded from liability in the instant
action.
We believe it well established that the Board of
Education is an arm of state government and entitled to sovereign
immunity.
Clevinger v. Board of Education, Ky., 789 S.W.2d 5
-2-
(1990).
We also think KHSAA is clearly an agency of the Kentucky
Board of Education and thus is likewise cloaked with sovereign
immunity.
Ky. Rev. Stat. 156.070(2) and .035.
Under the
precepts of Franklin County v. Malone, Ky., 957 S.W.2d 195
(1998), we view public education as a traditional role of
government; consequently, as Davis, Becker, and Stewart were
school employees undeniably acting within the scope of their
duties, we are bound to conclude they are also entitled to
immunity.
Upon the whole, we are of the opinion that appellees
were shielded by immunity and that summary judgment was proper.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the
Jefferson Circuit Court is affirmed.
SCHRODER, JUDGE, CONCURS.
KNOPF, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE KHSAA:
A. Thomas Johnson
Louisville, KY
Danny C. Reeves
Roger G. Wright
Lexington, KY
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES DAVIS,
BECKER, STEWART, AND BOARD OF
EDUCATION:
Byron E. Leet
Steven L. Snyder
Daniel G. Brown
Louisville, KY
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE COKER:
William K. Oldham
Louisville, KY
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
