INN Ar b -q DD " MICHAEL WILSON V. KEITH RUSSELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : MAY 19, 2005
TO BE PUBLISHED
INN
'Supreme dourf uf'~
2003-SC-001015-DG
DD
MICHAEL WILSON
A r
c~~
b -q
"
b
APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS
2002-CA-1426 and 2002-CA-1474
PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2000-CI-00073
V.
KEITH RUSSELL
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE LAMBERT
VACATING AND REMANDING
This case began with a remodeling project at the home of Michael Wilson,
the Appellant . Wilson called upon the assistance of his longtime friend, Appellee Keith
Russell, one experienced in construction and remodeling . Wilson set up the work area
and assembled a scaffold on his premises, using for support a wooden ladder that he
owned . The ladder was approximately five years old, had never been subjected to
maintenance during that time, and had been left outside in the weather a few times .
When Russell climbed onto the scaffold, a rung on Wilson's ladder broke, causing the
scaffold to tilt. Russell fell about five feet, fracturing his heel bone. He sued his old
friend Wilson for damages .
At trial, the jury returned a verdict in Wilson's favor. However, Russell
moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the motion was granted in an
order dated June 4, 2002 . In that order, the trial court granted judgment
~.V .
notwithstanding the verdict, and ordered a new trial on the issues of comparative
negligence and damages . Despite the interlocutory character of the June 4, 2002,
order, an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals and that court affirmed on the
merits of the case . This Court granted discretionary review and now vacates the
opinion of the Court of Appeals and remands to the trial court for further proceedings .
It is fundamental that a court must have jurisdiction before it has authority
to decide a case. Jurisdiction is the ubiquitous procedural threshold through which all
cases and controversies must pass prior to having their substance examined . So
fundamental is jurisdiction that it is the concept on which first-year law students cut their
teeth . Here, jurisdiction in the context of appellate procedure is at issue because no
final order or judgment has been entered by the trial court. At the outset we note that
an appeal may be properly considered only if perfected according to our rules of
practice and procedure . Our rules require that there be a final order or judgment from
which an appeal is taken .'
We begin with CR 73 .02. "The notice of appeal shall be filed within 30
days after the date of notation of service of the judgment or order under Rule 77.04 ."
CR 77.04(2) mandates that the clerk of the court immediately serve a notice of entry of
a judgment or final order, among other things, upon every party to the proceeding who
is not in default for failure to appear . CR 54.01 defines a final or appealable judgment
as a final order "adjudicating all the rights of all the parties in an action or proceeding ."
CR 54.02 does provide a limited exception where there are multiple parties or multiple
' KRS 22A.020 grants jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals regarding interlocutory orders
of the Circuit Court in civil cases provided that it is authorized by rules promulgated by
the Supreme Court . However, CR 65 .07, which is the rule promulgated by the
Supreme Court allowing for such jurisdiction, deals only with injunctions, which are not
at issue in this appeal .
claims . It allows for an appeal when less than all the rights of all the parties have been
adjudicated, but only upon a determination that it is final and that there is no just reason
for delay. In the absence of such finality and a recitation thereof, the order is
interlocutory and subject to modification and correction before becoming a final and
appealable judgment or order.
The judgment from which Wilson sought to appeal does not adjudicate all
the rights of all the parties . To the contrary, it specifically calls for a new trial as to
comparative negligence and damages. Therefore, it was not appealable . And Wilson
finds no refuge in CR 54.02 because no part of the order was final and appealable .
Despite the foregoing, neither party nor the Court of Appeals identified this issue.
However, even though not raised, "jurisdiction may not be waived, and it can not be
conferred by consent of the parties . This [C]ourt must determine for itself whether it
has jurisdiction ."s As there is no final order or judgment from which to appeal, the Court
of Appeals was without jurisdiction .4 And it has long been a fundamental maxim that a
court will not assume jurisdiction where it does not exist.5
2 CR 54.01 .
Hubbard v. Hubbard, 303 Ky. 411, 197 S.W .2d 923 (1946) . See also Kentucky Bar
Foundation, Kentucky Appellate Practice ยง 21 .03 (1985).
4 See American Fidelity & Casualty Co . v. Patterson, 314 Ky. 741, 742-43, 237 S.W.2d
57 (1951) ("Not having a final judgment in the record, we are without jurisdiction of the
appeal in this case ."); see also Coomer v. Commonwealth , 309 Ky . 575, 576, 218
S .W .2d 393 (1949) ("[A]s there is no judgment contained in the record there is nothing
from which he may prosecute an appeal; therefore, we are without jurisdiction to
entertain his motion and it is hereby overruled .") ; Christman v. Chess, 102 Ky. 230, 43
S .W . 426 (1897) ("If there was not a final judgment or order in this case, it follows that
this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal .").
5 Cf. Morgan v. Register, 3 Ky. (Hard .) 609, 610 (1808) ("so neither can we consent to
assume a jurisdiction in defiance of that instrument by which we are bound, and which
we are sworn to support.") .
3
In conclusion, an order granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict and
assigning the case for further trial court proceedings is not a final or appealable
judgment. No appellate court possesses jurisdiction to undertake review in such a
case . Accordingly, we vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals for want of jurisdiction
and remand to the trial court for further proceedings .
Cooper, Graves, Johnstone, Keller, Scott, and Wintersheimer, JJ .,
concur.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Frank V . Benton, IV
BENTON, BENTON & LUEDEKE
528 Overton Street
P. 0. Box 72218
Newport, KY 41072-0218
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE :
Richard A. Woeste
BATHALTER & WOESTE, P .S .C .
16 East Main Street
P . O . Box 92
Alexandria, KY 41001
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.
