Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-1903 (2026)

Amount of damages; jury instructions; itemized verdict

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-1903. Amount of damages; jury instructions; itemized verdict. (a) In any wrongful death action, the court or jury may award such damages as are found to be fair and just under all the facts and circumstances, but the damages, other than pecuniary loss sustained by an heir at law, cannot exceed in the aggregate the sum of $250,000 and costs.

(b) If a wrongful death action is to a jury, the court shall not instruct the jury on the monetary limitation imposed by subsection (a) upon recovery of damages for nonpecuniary loss. If the jury verdict results in an award of damages for nonpecuniary loss which, after deduction of any amounts pursuant to K.S.A. 60-258a and amendments thereto, exceeds the limitation of subsection (a), the court shall enter judgment for damages of $250,000 for nonpecuniary loss.

(c) In any wrongful death action, the verdict shall be itemized by the trier of fact to reflect the amounts, if any, awarded for:

(1) Nonpecuniary damages;

(2) expenses for the care of the deceased caused by the injury; and

(3) pecuniary damages other than those itemized under subsection (c)(2).

(d) Where applicable, the amounts required to be itemized pursuant to subsections (c)(1) and (c)(3) shall be further itemized by the trier of fact to reflect those amounts awarded for injuries and losses sustained to date and those awarded for injuries and losses reasonably expected to be sustained in the future.

(e) In any wrongful death action, the trial court shall instruct the jury only on those items of damage upon which there is some evidence to base an award.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-1903; L. 1967, ch. 329, § 1; L. 1970, ch. 241, § 1; L. 1975, ch. 303, § 2; L. 1984, ch. 214, § 1; L. 1987, ch. 224, § 2; L. 1998, ch. 68, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Leiker Ex Rel. Leiker v. Gafford, 778 P.2d 823 (Kan. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Leiker Ex Rel. Leiker v. Gafford, 778 P.2d 823 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 22× “nd properly resuscitate his patient? (8) Are Marshall and his professional corporation vicariously liable for Gafford's negligence and, if so, to what extent? (9) Did the jury instructions incorrectly set forth the appropriate duty owed by Gafford and allow the jury to set a…”

Wentling v. Med. Anesthesia Servs., 701 P.2d 939 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 14× “At the time of trial the controlling statutes were K.S.A. 60-1903 and 60-1904. K.S.A. 60-1903 provided: "Amount of Damages.”

McCart v. Muir, 641 P.2d 384 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 11× “Out of this confusion of points appear three primary areas of law to be considered by this court on appeal: (1) Negligent entrustment, (2) comparative negligence in negligent entrustment cases, and (3) the nature and amount of damages *620 allowable under the provisions of…”

Miller v. Johnson, 289 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 3× ““(e) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to repeal or modify the limitation provided by K.S.A. 60-1903 and amendments thereto in wrongful death actions.”

Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 4× “)" Although the "but are not limited to" language might suggest punitive damages are recoverable, K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-1903(c) clarifies the intimation of 60-1901 that only actual damages are recoverable.”

Benton v. Union Pac. R.R., 430 F. Supp. 1380 (D. Kan. 1977). · cites it 9× “Plaintiff alleges diversity jurisdiction and brings this action under the Kansas wrongful death statute, K.S.A. § 60-1903. In a Memorandum and Order dated November 2, 1976, the court held that the version of the wrongful death statute in effect at the time of the accident…”

Dickey Ex Rel. Dickey v. Daughety, 917 P.2d 889 (Kan. 1996). · cites it 17× “For die reasons set forth below, we agree with die trial court and the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that in such an action nonpecuniaiy damages awarded by the jury *13 are to be multiplied by the percentage of lost chance of survival before application of the statutory cap in…”

Est. of Sisk v. Manzanares, 270 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (D. Kan. 2003). · cites it 5× “174) for the court's consideration only “in the event the Court for some reason does not apply the damage limi[ta]tion of $250,000 on nonpecu-niary damages in K.S.A. 60-1903.” That is, in such event, defendants asked that the court grant a remittitur so as to reduce the…”

Kleibrink v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co., 581 P.2d 372 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 5× “Finally, the appellant asserts the trial court erred in refusing to reduce the jury's verdict to $50,000 plus funeral expenses, which was the limit for wrongful death under K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 60-1903 *444 at the date of the decedent's death on July 24, 1974.”

Stueve v. Am. Honda Motors Co., Inc., 457 F. Supp. 740 (D. Kan. 1978). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. § 60-1903. However, the settlement with Wither-spoon has also engendered a motion for [partial] summary judgment now before the Court.”

Johnson v. McArthur, 596 P.2d 148 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 4× “" K.S.A. 60-1903. Amount of damages. "In any such action, the court or jury may award such damages as are found to be fair and just under all the facts and circumstances, but the damages, other than pecuniary loss sustained by an heir at law, cannot exceed in the aggregate the…”

Bair v. Peck, 811 P.2d 1176 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 2× “After determining that the equal protection issue was subject to the reasonable basis test, the court stated: "The `reasonable basis' test is violated only if the statutory classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's legitimate objective.”

Show all 64 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-1903(a) — 13 cases

Leiker Ex Rel. Leiker v. Gafford, 778 P.2d 823 (Kan. 1989). “nd properly resuscitate his patient? (8) Are Marshall and his professional corporation vicariously liable for Gafford's negligence and, if so, to what extent? (9) Did the jury instructions incorrectly set forth the appropriate duty owed by Gafford and allow the jury to set a…”

Est. of Sisk v. Manzanares, 270 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (D. Kan. 2003). “174) for the court's consideration only “in the event the Court for some reason does not apply the damage limi[ta]tion of $250,000 on nonpecu-niary damages in K.S.A. 60-1903.” That is, in such event, defendants asked that the court grant a remittitur so as to reduce the…”

Dickey Ex Rel. Dickey v. Daughety, 917 P.2d 889 (Kan. 1996). “For die reasons set forth below, we agree with die trial court and the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that in such an action nonpecuniaiy damages awarded by the jury *13 are to be multiplied by the percentage of lost chance of survival before application of the statutory cap in…”

Turman v. Ameritruck Refrigerated Transp., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 2d 444 (D. Kan. 2000).

Boody v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 1458 (D. Kan. 1989).

— K.S.A. § 60-1903(b) — 6 cases

Gregory v. Carey, 791 P.2d 1329 (Kan. 1990).

Mahomes-Vinson v. United States, 751 F. Supp. 913 (D. Kan. 1990).

— K.S.A. § 60-1903(c) — 3 cases

Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). “)" Although the "but are not limited to" language might suggest punitive damages are recoverable, K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-1903(c) clarifies the intimation of 60-1901 that only actual damages are recoverable.”

Griffith Ex Rel. Griffith v. Mt. Carmel Med. Ctr., 842 F. Supp. 1359 (D. Kan. 1994).

Burnette v. Eubanks, 425 P.3d 343 (2018).

— K.S.A. § 60-1903(e) — 4 cases

Sterba Ex Rel. Beecham v. Jay, 816 P.2d 379 (Kan. 1991).

Boody v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 1458 (D. Kan. 1989).

Barnes v. Robison, 712 F. Supp. 873 (D. Kan. 1989).

Burnette v. Eubanks, 425 P.3d 343 (2018).

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.