During his time in law school, Ryan developed a desire to be involved with litigation. In 2019, Ryan joined Walters Richardson as a civil litigation attorney.
Associate, Walters Richardson PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, January 2019 to present
Law Clerk, The Schafer Law Office, Louisville, Kentucky, June 2016 to May 2018
University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law, Louisville, Kentucky, Juris Doctor, Cum Laude, 2018
Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky, Bachelor of Business Administration, Magna CumLaude, 2014
Accomplishments, Honors, and Affiliations
Member of Defense Research Institute
CALI Award, Lawyering Skills I
CALI Award, Lawyering Skills II
Kentucky Bar Association
Louisville Bar Association
December 2021, Hardin County, KY: Gore v. Blazer’s Fun Zone, et al. Melissa Richardson and Ryan Glass obtained a defense verdict on liability for their clients. Plaintiff was a patron at an amusement venue for her grandson’s birthday. To enter the business, everyone was required to sign a waiver. Blazer’s had an electronically signed waiver; however, Plaintiff disputed that she had ever signed one. The Judge instructed the Jury that the terms of the waiver did not preclude the lawsuit but could be used in its consideration as to the actions or inactions of Plaintiff while she was at the premises.
During the course of the birthday party, members of the party decided to play laser tag, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff proceeded up a significant set of stairs to enter the arena. Plaintiff was told by the “Game Master” that there was one door in the center of the arena that was marked with the words “Emergency Exit” in neon letters, and told not to go out the emergency exit door unless there was an actual emergency. The instruction did not include specific guidance that the other side of the door led to a landing and a set of 20 concrete stairs; Plaintiff contended that she should have been explicitly warned about the stairs even though she had obviously walked up a significant flight of stairs. While Plaintiff initially denied being told about the presence of the emergency exit and the directive not to use it, she later admitted that some instruction was given before the game began but said she had not really heard it because the children in the group were “too loud.” She did not ask for the instructions to be repeated or clarified.
The emergency exit stairwell was not an enclosed space. The walls on either side did not go all the way to the ceiling of the building. The overhead lights, which, during game play were black lights, cast light into the stairwell as it effectively had no immediate ceiling. At the bottom of the stairwell, there was a common fluorescent light that Blazer’s indicated was always on when the business was open to the public. Further, on both of the walls that ran parallel to the landing, there were windows that allowed light into the stairwell. In fact, Plaintiff spoke with her son through those windows just before she fell. Specifically, she had told him that the children were “up there” and that she was “going to go up there and get them.” However, she admitted that even though she intended to go “up,” she was not really looking for a set of stairs or a ramp that would take her up to where the children were.
Instead, she indicated that she went through a door that had no signs on it – it was totally black. While no mention of this claim was noted in her written discovery, she testified in her discovery deposition that the stairwell was “pitch black.” When she opened the door, she admitted that she could tell that the stairwell was totally black, and she chose to enter it anyway as she believed the area to be “part of the game” based on the fact that the door was decorated to match the general theme of the arena. Notably though, she allegedly did not see the “Emergency Exit” sign and explicitly testified that it was just a black door. Photos from before the fall show it was not. It is unclear how the decoration on the door which reportedly made her think the door was part of the game could have lured her into the stairwell when she claims the door she saw was just a plain black door. Further, it was argued that the door needed more signage, but, as she allegedly did not see the sign on the door or the lit exit sign above it, it is unclear how additional signage would have made a difference.
Upon entering the allegedly pitch-black stairwell, Plaintiff indicated that she immediately fell down the stairs. Among other claims, she contended that the light at the bottom of the stairwell was off. However, her code expert claimed that even if the light at the bottom was on, the area did not meet the illumination requirements of the Kentucky Building Code (KBC). This was based on the recollection of the witnesses who were there with Plaintiff and one photograph taken by a party attendee at the request of Plaintiff’s daughter-in-law that showed the light was out. With the light at the bottom of the stairs out, Plaintiff’s code expert indicated that the illumination level was a 0.0 foot-candle. She contended it was required to be 1.0 foot-candle.
Blazer’s contended the light at the bottom of the stairs was on as the owner saw it on during the time the EMS crew were examining Plaintiff, and that, even if it was not on, the area where Plaintiff was when she fell was certainly within the illumination levels required by the KBC. Plaintiff’s expert and Defense expert both measured illumination levels of more than 0.02 foot-candle at the landing and the first stair. Defense expert argued that this was the proper level of illumination that applied to this business when the laser tag game was being played. Notably, Blazer’s expert had also measured the light in the arena, which was the same level of light that existed at the top of the stairwell to show that Plaintiff could see as she had admitted that she could see to move around the arena. Moreover, Blazer’s relied on the fact that the stairwell had been approved by the City of Radcliff and had been inspected numerous times by the Fire Marshall without issue.
As a result of the fall, Plaintiff suffered four fractured ribs and a concussion, along with extensive bruising. Her main complaints currently are continuing issues with dizziness that prevented her from participating in many activities that she enjoyed, and, in particular, that made it impossible for her to drive. She claims to have only driven once in the years since the fall. Two years after the fall, Dr. David Changaris, a neurosurgeon, opined Plaintiff sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of the fall. Plaintiff’s treating neurologist had not made such a diagnosis. When questioned about this, Dr. Changaris indicated that a neurologist would not be capable of making such a diagnosis. Dr. Changaris also indicated that because of her injury she would develop Alzheimer’s disease 10 years earlier than she otherwise would have. Blazer’s expert, Dr. Richard Edelson, a neuropsychologist, testified that Plaintiff did not have a brain injury and based on his neuro-cognitive testing, she did not have a profile that was consistent with someone who had a pre-Alzheimer’s profile. He also indicated he believed she had a pain disorder that was exacerbated by the fall and PTSD that was caused by this fall. While he also testified that her complaints were likely real, they were also treatable; however, she had not sought any meaningful treatment options to address her ongoing symptoms. Further, Plaintiff had a host of long-term health issues that were playing a role in her ongoing complaints, most notably an extensive history of anxiety, depression, and panic attacks that, per her medical provider 10 months before the fall, impacted her life in a significant way on a daily basis. Additionally, other medical records called into question Plaintiff’s mobility before this as she had significant complaints of pain documented one month before this fall in her back (she had surgery about 10 months before but did not get it checked by her surgeon after this fall), both hips, and her ankles/feet.
At the conclusion of the trial, eleven of the twelve jurors found for Blazer’s on liability.
July 2021, Jefferson County, KY: First Select Properties, LLC and A & A Mechanical, Inc. v.LVL, LLC and ARK Services, LLC. John Walters and Ryan Glass successfully defended their clients. This litigation concerned the alleged intrusion of salt from one property to a neighboring property. Defendant ARK Services, LLC operated a facility maintenance business on the premises of 1113 Ulrich Avenue in Louisville, Kentucky. The property on which ARK Services’ operated the business was owned by Defendant LVL, LLC. As part of its business operations, ARK Services, LLC stored rock salt on its premises from November 2010 to October 2018. The salt was used at the nearby UPS facility during winter conditions.
In 2018, the owner of the neighboring property noticed rusting to his metal buildings, a white substance on the concrete of his property, and damage to the businesses’ personal property. Plaintiffs alleged the salt had migrated from Defendants’ property and damaged the real property and personal property of Plaintiffs as a result of the negligence of Defendants in the storage of the salt.
Plaintiffs argued buildings on their property needed to be torn down, concrete removed, an interceptor trench placed, and the buildings rebuilt. Plaintiffs argued the salt would continue to damage the property in the future as it was below the surface of the ground and the salt vapor would cause ongoing harm to the property. Plaintiffs claimed the damage was so severe, the property had a value of $0 following the salt intrusion.
Defendants argued the damage was limited to one metal framed building on Plaintiffs’ property and the concrete in and around same. Plaintiffs sought to recover up to $3,000,000.00 in damages for replacement of their buildings. Defendants presented evidence the cost of repair was $177,598.02. The jury was out for one hour, including eating lunch within that hour. The jury awarded $177,598.02. Nine of the 12 jurors agreed to the award of $177,598.02.
November 2019, Jefferson County, KY: Pate v. Settle. Melissa Richardson and Ryan Glass successfully obtained summary judgment for their client. Defendant rented a dumpster for his tenant to use during efforts to remediate the property. Plaintiff was allegedly helping the tenant with the remediation efforts. In doing so, Plaintiff placed a nightstand next to the dumpster and stood on the nightstand to make additional room in the dumpster. No one instructed Plaintiff to do this. Plaintiff fell off the nightstand and broke his hip. Plaintiff alleged he was hired by Defendant to remediate one of Defendant’s rental properties. Defendant denied this. Plaintiff filed suit alleging Defendant “retained control of a dumpster with improper and/or absent safety measures that was brought onto the property for the common use of all persons.” The Court ruled Defendant could not foresee Plaintiff would be injured by the allegedly dangerous condition that Plaintiff himself created and thus that the Defendant did not breach any duty.
March 2019, Jefferson District Court: Curtis v. Vernon. Mr. Ryan Glass successfully defended his client who was sued for diminution in value of Plaintiff’s vehicle after her insurer had already paid for the cost of repair of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, argued she was entitled to both items of damage under Kentucky law. After Plaintiff finished putting on proof, including calling witnesses who were cross examined, Mr. Glass argued that an award in diminution in value would in effect be permitting a double recovery by Plaintiff. The Court ruled in favor of Defendant.
In his spare time, Ryan enjoys watching sports, playing golf, and spending time with his family and friends.