PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
GOLDEN & WALTERS PLLC
Member, Lexington, Kentucky 2002-Present

Samples of Jury Trials:
• Auto Negligence – Thomas Robinson, Plaintiff v. Walls, Walls and Cecil Howell, Defendants, Commonwealth of Kentucky , Pike Circuit Court, Civil Action No. 04-CI-01107, rendered June 12, 2006 . Mr. Davis defended Cecil Howell against a motorist seeking $740,000.00 in personal injury damages arising out of a three-vehicle collision on Highway 23 in Pikeville, KY, on August 7, 2003.  Defending on both liability and damages during a three-day trial, Mr. Davis obtained a unanimous defense verdict in favor of Mr. Howell. The jury went on to apportion 100% of fault to the other defendant, awarding $94,462.10 in total damages.

• Mold/Construction – David and Jennifer Campbell, Plaintiffs v. Tim Childers and Tim Childers Building, Inc., Defendants, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Lincoln Circuit Court, Civil Action No. 03-CI-00201. As lead counsel, Mr. Davis defended Childers Building against homeowners claiming over $273,000.00 in damages and nearly $100,000.00 in additional legal fees and costs. The Plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Childers failed to build their home in a workmanlike manner, particularly with respect to brick veneer masonry, resulting in mold infestation that rendered their home uninhabitable. Mr. Davis countered that not only was Childers no longer the Plaintiffs' general contractor at the time the allegedly defective work was performed, but also that there were no construction defects and that mold levels in the home were completely normal. The case involved complex issues such as mold intrusion, testing, and remediation standards, construction industry standards in areas such as framing, excavation, insulation, drywall and masonry, breach of warranty, violations of the Kentucky Building Code and Consumer Protection Act, and breach of contract. At the conclusion of a five-day trial, the jury unanimously rejected the Plaintiff's claims of mold infestation and remediation, as well as negligent construction and supervision in the areas they claimed to have resulted in damages. The jury also rejected the Plaintiffs' breach of warranty claim and secondary housing expenses. Based upon unrelated minor defects admitted by the defense during the trial, the jury awarded only $15,000.00 to the Plaintiffs.

• Personal Injury/Vicarious Liability – Barry Holder, Plaintiff, v. Sandra Stuart, Kirby Martin and Jason Stewart, Defendants, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Montgomery Circuit Court, Civil Action No. 02-CI-90065. As co-counsel, Mr. Davis defended Ms. Stuart, Mr. Martin and Mr. Stuart against an independent contractor claiming personal injuries resulting from the use of a miter saw. The Plaintiff claimed that while he was cutting bathroom trim boards in Ms. Stuart's home, Mr. Martin negligently pushed him into the miter saw blade, causing him to suffer pain, permanent disfigurement and impairment of earning capacity, lost wages, and medical expenses. The defense countered that the Plaintiff caused his own injury. During opening statements at trial, Mr. Davis successfully excluded most of the Plaintiff's claimed damages under Fratzke v. Murphy , leaving the Plaintiff only with his past wages and pain and suffering claims. At the conclusion of the Plaintiff's case-in-chief, Mr. Davis obtained directed verdict on liability in favor of Mr. And Ms. Stuart. At the conclusion of trial, the jury returned a defense verdict on liability for Mr. Martin after less than five (5) minutes.

• Auto Negligence – Frederick Watson and Kentucky Farm Bureau, Plaintiffs, v. John M. Fitch, Defendant, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Fayette District Court, Civil Action No. 02-C-07433. The Plaintiff claimed that Mr. Fitch's negligence caused the collision. Asserting a counter-claim on behalf of Mr. Fitch, Mr. Davis countered that the collision was caused by the Plaintiff's attempt to make an improper lane change in front of Mr. Fitch's vehicle. At trial, Mr. Fitch admitted that the Plaintiff had not yet left his lane of travel when Mr. Fitch sped up to run a yellow light. Nevertheless, Mr. Davis relied upon the disputed testimony of the investigating police officer that the Plaintiff had stated at the scene that the accident occurred when he first switched lanes and then attempted to return. The jury agreed, and apportioned 75% of the fault to the Plaintiff himself. Because Mr. Fitch's stipulated damages were greater than the Plaintiffs, the verdict resulted in a net monetary award to the Defendant, Mr. Fitch.

• Lexington Fayette Food and Beverage Association v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government et al, Ky., 131 S.W.3d 745 (April 22, 2004) (Released for Publication May 4, 2004): Mr. Davis presented an Appeal to the Supreme Court of Kentucky on behalf of Lexington bar and restaurant owners challenging the constitutionality of the Lexington “smoking ban” ordinance, which eliminated smoking in all restaurants and bars in the county, including cigar bars, nightclubs and taverns, and even outlawed the possession of “smoking paraphernalia” in any building where smoking was banned. Although the Court affirmed the ordinance in part, holding that the prohibition on smoking was well within the traditionally recognized authority of local government as a health matter, it reversed the city's ban on smoking paraphernalia by holding that the provision requiring removal of “smoking paraphernalia” from such premises was unconstitutionally vague because entities that were subject to the ordinance would have to rely on conjecture, speculation, and guesswork when they attempted to bring themselves into compliance.

• Bartley v. Educational Training Systems, Inc., Ky., 134 S.W.3d 612 (May 20, 2004) (Released for Publication June 10, 2004): Mr. Davis responded on behalf of a Lexington real estate school to an appeal of summary judgment against a plaintiff student who tripped and fell in a classroom. The primary issue concerned the legacy of the Court's newly-established burden-shifting approach to slip and fall cases set forth in Lanier v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which involved transient substances. Because the Court's rationale in Lanier was based upon the unique qualities of transient substances in self-service retail environments, ETS argued that Lanier should have no application to other types of slip and falls. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that its new burden-shifting approach would not be limited to self-service retail shops.

EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF LAW
Lexington, Kentucky
Juris Doctor, 2002

MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY
Murray, Kentucky
Bachelor of Science, Political Science, May 1994