5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tuley v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.green2 sentences2011See Sall v. T's, Inc., 281 Kan. 1355, 1372 , 136 P.3d 471 (2006) (“To the extent the Court of Appeals’ majority suggests that a play at [your] own risk’ warning equates with a golfer assuming the risk of Hghtning strikes, the common-law assumption of risk doctrine is restricted to cases involving employer-employee relationships.”); see also Pullen v. West, 278 Kan. 183, 192 , 92 P.3d 584 (2004) (holding defense is viable but rejecting on facts because no employer-employee relationship); Tuley, 252 Kan. at 210 (same); Walters v. St. 2011We do not believe that assumption of the risk can be carried to that extent.” “In Kansas, the common-law assumption of risk doctrine is restricted to cases involving employer-employee relationships.” Tuley, 252 Kan. at 210 . | 2 | 4 |
Pullen v. Westgreen2 sentences2011See Sall v. T's, Inc., 281 Kan. 1355, 1372 , 136 P.3d 471 (2006) (“To the extent the Court of Appeals’ majority suggests that a play at [your] own risk’ warning equates with a golfer assuming the risk of Hghtning strikes, the common-law assumption of risk doctrine is restricted to cases involving employer-employee relationships.”); see also Pullen v. West, 278 Kan. 183, 192 , 92 P.3d 584 (2004) (holding defense is viable but rejecting on facts because no employer-employee relationship); Tuley, 252 Kan. at 210 (same); Walters v. St. 2011See Sall v. T's, Inc., 281 Kan. 1355, 1372 , 136 P.3d 471 (2006) (“To the extent the Court of Appeals’ majority suggests that a play at [your] own risk’ warning equates with a golfer assuming the risk of Hghtning strikes, the common-law assumption of risk doctrine is restricted to cases involving employer-employee relationships.”); see also Pullen v. West, 278 Kan. 183, 192 , 92 P.3d 584 (2004) (holding defense is viable but rejecting on facts because no employer-employee relationship); Tuley, 252 Kan. at 210 (same); Walters v. St. | 1 | 1 |
Sall Ex Rel. Sall v. T'S, Inc.green2 sentences2011See Sall v. T's, Inc., 281 Kan. 1355, 1372 , 136 P.3d 471 (2006) (“To the extent the Court of Appeals’ majority suggests that a play at [your] own risk’ warning equates with a golfer assuming the risk of Hghtning strikes, the common-law assumption of risk doctrine is restricted to cases involving employer-employee relationships.”); see also Pullen v. West, 278 Kan. 183, 192 , 92 P.3d 584 (2004) (holding defense is viable but rejecting on facts because no employer-employee relationship); Tuley, 252 Kan. at 210 (same); Walters v. St. 2011See Sall v. T's, Inc., 281 Kan. 1355, 1372 , 136 P.3d 471 (2006) (“To the extent the Court of Appeals’ majority suggests that a play at [your] own risk’ warning equates with a golfer assuming the risk of Hghtning strikes, the common-law assumption of risk doctrine is restricted to cases involving employer-employee relationships.”); see also Pullen v. West, 278 Kan. 183, 192 , 92 P.3d 584 (2004) (holding defense is viable but rejecting on facts because no employer-employee relationship); Tuley, 252 Kan. at 210 (same); Walters v. St. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Blakey, Administrator
green
2 sentences1992Smith v. Blakey, Administrator, 213 Kan. 91, 101 , 515 P.2d 1062 (1973). 1992Smith v. Blakey, Administrator, 213 Kan. 91, 101 , 515 P.2d 1062 (1973). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.