COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. ASHLEY M. BLAKELY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : MAY 24, 2007
TO BE PUBLISHED
axyrrmr C~Vurf of
2006-SC-000313-CL
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
V.
I
APPELLANT
FROM JEFFERSON DISTRICT COURT
HONORABLE ANGELA McCORMICK
NO . 05-T-048114
APPELLEE
ASHLEY M . BLAKELY
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE SCOTT
CERTIFYING THE LAW
The Commonwealth, pursuant to CR 76.37(10), petitions this Court for a
certification of the law regarding KRS Chapter 304 . Due to the General
Assembly's amendments to Chapter 304 in 2005, we are once again presented
with the question of whether a non-owner operator of a motor vehicle can be
assessed criminal penalties because the motor vehicle being driven is uninsured.
The 2005 amendments to Chapter 304 primarily affected the penalty provisions
of the statute . These amendments included the addition of a new subsection,
KRS 304.99-060(2)', which set forth the penalty for a person who drives a motor
The full language of the 2005 version of KRS 304.99-060(2) is as follows: "A
person who operates a motor vehicle without security on the motor vehicle as
required by Subtitle 39 of this chapter shall: a) Be fined not less than five
hundred dollars ($500) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or
sentenced to not more than ninety (90) days in jail, or both ; and b) For the
second and each subsequent offense within any five (5) year period, have his
operator's license revoked in accordance with KRS 186 .560, and may be,
vehicle without insurance . Another added subsection, KRS 304 .99-060(3), 2
stated that if the person operating the motor vehicle was also the owner, then he
could be subject to the penalties outlined in both the first and second
subsections . The General Assembly also made changes to the definition of
habitual violator under this statute to include operating a motor vehicle several
times without insurance . The only change to the substantive provision of
Chapter 304, KRS 304.39-080, was to attach criminal liability to an owner of an
uninsured vehicle who permits another person to drive the car .4
After reviewing the relevant statutes and case law, we find that the 2005
amendments do not create criminal penalties that may be assessed against a
non-owner operator of a motor vehicle that is uninsured :
This is not the first time that this Court has dealt with this issue . In Estes
v. Commonwealth , 952 S .W.2d 701 (Ky. 1997), this Court held that the General
Assembly's 1994 revisions to KRS Chapter 304 were inadequate to create
criminal liability for non-owner operators of uninsured motor vehicles . Important
sentenced to not more than one hundred eighty (180) days in jail or fined not less
than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than two thousand five hundred
dollars ($2,500), or both ."
2 The 2005 version of KRS 304 .99-060(3) states : "If the person who operates a
motor vehicle without security on the motor vehicle as required by Subtitle 39 of
this chapter is also the owner of the motor vehicle, the person shall be subject to
penalties under both subsection (1) and subsection (2) of this section ."
3 The definition for habitual violator according to KRS 186.570(1)(k) is: "For
purposes of this section, a `habitual violator' shall mean any person who has
operated a motor vehicle without security on the motor vehicle as required by
Subtitle 39 of this chapter three (3) or more times within a five (5) year period, in
violation of KRS 304.99-060(2) ."
4 The new language of KRS 304.39-080(5) is : "An owner who permits another
person to operate a motor vehicle without security on the motor vehicle as
required by this subtitle shall be subject to the penalties in KRS 304.99-060."
to this determination was the fact that the substantive provision of Subtitle 39,
KRS 304.39-080, did not include language to indicate that the General Assembly
intended to attach criminal liability upon a non-owner operator of an uninsured
car. Estes , 952 S.W .2d at 702. While the penalty section, KRS 304.99-060, had
been amended to include punishment for either an owner or operator, this Court
was unwilling to recognize the creation of a crime without specific language in the
substantive section. Estes , 952 S .W.2d at 702. "If the legislature had wanted to
amend the substantive provision, KRS 304.39-080, to encompass `owners' and
`operators,' it could have done so in a clear manner. It did not." Id . at 704.
Since Estes was decided, the General Assembly twice amended the
substantive provision, KRS 304.39-080, without addressing the concerns
expressed in Estes .5 Because the General Assembly was aware of the
deficiencies of the statute and did not take action to solve them, we must
presume that Estes controls this case . See Butler v. Groce, 880 S.W.2d 547,
549 (Ky. 1994) quoting Long v. Smith, 281 Ky. 512, 136 S.W.2d 789 (1940) . ("If
the legislators intended to depart from the existing statutory interpretation, it is
incumbent that they use `plain and unmistakable language' which leaves no
doubt that a departure from the prior interpretation is intended .") Thus, the
amendments made in 2005 do not adequately demonstrate that the General
Assembly wanted to change the statutory interpretation of KRS Chapter 304.
Even more importantly, the General Assembly in 2007 passed revisions to
KRS 304.39-080 that do comply with Estes . This revision adds the words "or
5 These amendments occurred in 1998 and 2005 .
operator" to KRS 304.39-080(5) and can only be considered an
acknowledgement that the prior amendments did not satisfy Estes .
Although Estes has sometimes been questioned, stare decisis is important
and prior precedent will only be overturned if there are sound reasons to do so.
Gilbert v. Barkes , 987 S .W .2d 772, 776 (Ky. 1999). Finding no such reasons, we
find that KRS Chapter 304 does not attach criminal liability upon a non-owner
operator of an uninsured vehicle .
All sitting. All concur.
ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT
David A. Sexton
Special Assistant Attorney General
Assistant Jefferson County Attorney
Fiscal Court Building
531 Court Place, Suite 1001
Louisville, KY 40202
ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLEE
Grant M . Helman
SMITH & HELMAN
600 West Main Street, Suite 100
Louisville, KY 40202
Stuart A. Scherer
SMITH & HELMAN
600 West Main Street, Suite 100
Louisville, KY 40202
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.