DAVID R. RIDDLE v. BETHANY D. WESTRICK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: AUGUST 31, 2007; 2:00 P.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2006-CA-001284-MR
DAVID R. RIDDLE
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN L. BATES, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 04-CI-00068
BETHANY D. WESTRICK
APPELLEE
OPINION
VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: KELLER, LAMBERT, AND STUMBO, JUDGES.
LAMBERT, JUDGE: David Riddle appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing his
personal and property injury suit for lack of prosecution. For the reasons set out herein,
we vacate the trial court's order of dismissal and remand with instructions.
This action arises from an automobile collision that occurred in 2002. At
the scene of the collision, the plaintiff, David Riddle, declined emergency medical
treatment. Subsequently, however, he brought suit against Bethany Westrick for alleged
personal and property injuries. To date, though, he has not adduced proof that his injuries
met the minimum threshold required by KRS 304.39-060 or the instigation of this action.
Furthermore, much time was squandered in this case due to the withdrawal of his original
attorney. Even now that Riddle has obtained new counsel, he still seeks additional time
for the production of pertinent discovery materials. Consequently, this action has
lingered for several years. Most recently, noting repeatedly missed deadlines and the
utter lack of progress in the prosecution of this case, the trial court summarily dismissed
Riddle's suit.
Riddle now claims that, below, the trial court failed to meticulously apply
the six-factor test required by Ward v. Housman before dismissing his suit. Furthermore,
he relies on Toler v. Rapid American, 190 S.W.3d 348 (Ky.App. 2006), for the principle
that, on appeal, we do not lightly affirm summary dismissals of civil complaints. Finally
he cogently points us to Jaroszewski v. Flege, 204 S.W.3d 148 (Ky.App. 2006), in which
we recently remanded an order of summary dismissal for close reconsideration of our sixfactor test, which we set out in Ward v. Housman.
We find Riddle's citation to our own, recent precedents to be persuasive.
Our review of the trial court's written opinion indicates that, while it did explicitly
consider a couple of the Ward v. Housman factors, it did not address all of them carefully
and explicitly, which we required in the recent, reported case of Jaroszewski v. Flege,
204 S.W.3d 148 (Ky.App. 2006). Thus, we vacate the trial court's order of dismissal and
remand this action for close, careful, and explicit consideration of all six factors
enumerated in Ward v. Housman.
-2-
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Stephen P. Huddleston
Warsaw, Kentucky
Susan Cetrulo
Cetrulo & Mowery, P.S.C.
Edgewood, Kentucky
-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.
