K.S.A. » Chapter 44
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 44-101 (2026)

Repealed

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

44-101.

History: L. 1903, ch. 356, § 1; R.S. 1923, 44-101; Repealed, L. 1978, ch. 191, § 3; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Failure to properly enclose elevator prima facie evidence of negligence. Fowler v. Enzenperger, 77 Kan. 406, 408, 414, 94 P. 995.

2. Purpose of statute is to insure general protection. Alkire v. Cudahy, 83 Kan. 373, 374, 111 P. 440.

3. No recovery when negligence of company did not cause injury. Weeks v. Packing Co., 90 Kan. 365, 366, 133 P. 713.

4. This act applies to all classes of employees. Smith v. Bowersock, 95 Kan. 96, 147 P. 1118. Affirmed: Bowersock v. Smith, 243 U.S. 29, 37 S. Ct. 371, 61 L.Ed. 572.

5. All sides of the elevator shaft should be enclosed. Myrick v. Manufacturing Co., 96 Kan. 17, 19, 149 P. 702.

6. Injury caused by setscrew on revolving shaft within factory act. Bollinger v. Hill City, 116 Kan. 604, 606, 227 P. 265.

7. Cutting of wood with bucksaw not within factory act. Whipple v. McLean, 124 Kan. 206, 257 P. 735.

8. Cited in holding similar act constitutional. Ohio Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Fender, 108 Ohio St. 149, 141 N.E. 269, 273.

9. Act is inapplicable to counties. Smith v. Higgins, 149 Kan. 477, 478, 87 P.2d 544.

10. K.S.A. 44-105 cited; workmen's compensation act provides exclusive remedy for accidental injuries arising out of and in course of employment. Lindsay, Administrator v. Hankamer Asphalt Co., Inc., 213 Kan. 855, 856, 518 P.2d 934.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1996–2005 · leading case: Aguirre v. McCaw RCC Commc'ns, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 1431 (D. Kan. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aguirre v. McCaw RCC Commc'ns, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 1431 (D. Kan. 1996). “and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, K.S.A. 44-101 et seq. The plaintiff claims that she was a victim of disparate treatment and that the defendants subjected her to a hostile work environment.”
Litton v. Maverick Paper Co., 354 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (D. Kan. 2005). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, plaintiffs have adequate alternative remedies under Title VII and the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination (“KAAD”), K.S.A. § 44-101 et seq. See Lines v. City of Ottawa, Kan.”
In re B.M.B., 955 P.2d 1302 (Kan. 1998). “1971, 31-1-1, Bums § 44-101. It would indeed be inconsistent and unjust to hold that one whom the State deems incapable of being able to marry, purchase alcoholic beverages, I.”
In re BMB, 955 P.2d 1302 (Kan. 1998). “1971, 31-1-1, Burns § 44-101. It would indeed be inconsistent and unjust to hold that one whom the State deems incapable of being able to marry, purchase alcoholic beverages, I.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.