K.S.A. » Chapter 60
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-19a01 (2026)

Personal injury action defined; limitation established; itemization of verdict; no jury instruction on limitation to be given; wrongful death limitation not affected; application limited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-19a01. Personal injury action defined; limitation established; itemization of verdict; no jury instruction on limitation to be given; wrongful death limitation not affected; application limited. (a) As used in this section, "personal injury action" means any action for damages for personal injury or death, except for medical malpractice liability actions.

(b) In any personal injury action, the total amount recoverable by each party from all defendants for all claims for pain and suffering shall not exceed a sum total of $250,000.

(c) In every personal injury action, the verdict shall be itemized by the trier of fact to reflect the amount awarded for pain and suffering.

(d) If a personal injury action is tried to a jury, the court shall not instruct the jury on the limitations of this section. If the verdict results in an award for pain and suffering which exceeds the limit of this section, the court shall enter judgment for $250,000 for all the party's claims for pain and suffering. Such entry of judgment by the court shall occur after consideration of comparative negligence principles in K.S.A. 60-258a and amendments thereto.

(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.

(f) The provisions of this section shall apply only to personal injury actions which are based on causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 1987, and before July 1, 1988.

History: L. 1987, ch. 217, § 1; L. 1988, ch. 216, § 2; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Samsel v. Wheeler Transp. Servs., Inc., 789 P.2d 541 (Kan. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Samsel v. Wheeler Transp. Servs., Inc., 789 P.2d 541 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 18× “60-3201: Does K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 60-19a01 violate the Kansas Constitution, including §§ 5 and 18 of the Kansas Bill of Rights? The majority of our legislature voted to limit the traditional role of the jury to determine the monetary value for loss of the *338 quality of life in…”
Cott v. Peppermint Twist Mgmt. Co., 856 P.2d 906 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 16× “In Weathers , a diversity case applying Kansas law, the issue was whether the statutory cap contained in K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-19a01 applies to claims of malicious prosecution or Outrage.”
Weathers v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 793 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Kan. 1992). · cites it 25× “00 pursuant to K.S.A. 60-19a01. The court previously rejected an identical attack made by AFM on the actual damages awarded pursuant to plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim, id.”
Miller v. Johnson, 289 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 5× “K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 60-19a01. The following year, the legislature merged these two damages caps into the statute at issue in this case.”
Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 837 P.2d 348 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 7× “44-501; consequently, LSI is not vicariously liable for Nanny’s negligence and LSI’s motion for a directed verdict should have been sustained; and (4) the entire K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-19a01 pain and suffering statutory limit of *402 $250,000 should not have been imposed on LSI as…”
Tamplin v. Star Lumber & Supply Co., 836 P.2d 1102 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 7× “We next consider whether the Tamplins’ counsel made an improper reference to, the K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-19a01 $250,000 cap on pain and suffering, and, if so, if such reference constitutes reversible error.”
Weathers v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 777 F. Supp. 879 (D. Kan. 1991). · cites it 24× “The court must also decide whether the damages awarded by the jury with respect to plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim must be reduced pursuant to K.S.A. 60-19a01. Additionally, pursuant to the requirements set forth in K.”
Power v. Arlington Hosp., 800 F. Supp. 1384 (E.D. Va. 1992). “00); Kansas, Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-19a01.(b) (1990) (total amount of damages in any personal injury action shall not exceed the sum total of $250,-000.”
Gann v. Joeckel, 884 P.2d 451 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “The trial court first determined LSI’s share of the pain and suffering to be $657,300 (40% of $1,643,250) and then reduced LSI’s portion of the award to $250,000 as required under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-19a01. This is the same procedure followed by the court in the present case.”
Samsel v. Wheeler Transp. Servs., Inc., 771 P.2d 71 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 2× “217, § 1, later codified as K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 60-19a01. That statute was in effect at the time of the collision.”
Dickey Ex Rel. Dickey v. Daughety, 905 P.2d 697 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “” K.S.A. 60-19a01(d) provides that entry of judgment for a capped recovery “shall occur after consideration of comparative negligence principles in K.”
Aves ex rel. Aves v. Shah, 914 F. Supp. 443 (D. Kan. 1996). “Applying a rational basis standard, the Kansas Supreme Court recently upheld limitations on noneconomic damages created by K.S.A. 60-19a01, Samsel v. Wheeler Transport Services, 246 Kan.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-19a01(b) — 3 cases
Cott v. Peppermint Twist Mgmt. Co., 856 P.2d 906 (Kan. 1993). “In Weathers , a diversity case applying Kansas law, the issue was whether the statutory cap contained in K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-19a01 applies to claims of malicious prosecution or Outrage.”
Weathers v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 793 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Kan. 1992). “00 pursuant to K.S.A. 60-19a01. The court previously rejected an identical attack made by AFM on the actual damages awarded pursuant to plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim, id.”
Weathers v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 777 F. Supp. 879 (D. Kan. 1991). “The court must also decide whether the damages awarded by the jury with respect to plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim must be reduced pursuant to K.S.A. 60-19a01. Additionally, pursuant to the requirements set forth in K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-19a01(c) — 2 cases
Tamplin v. Star Lumber & Supply Co., 836 P.2d 1102 (Kan. 1992). “We next consider whether the Tamplins’ counsel made an improper reference to, the K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-19a01 $250,000 cap on pain and suffering, and, if so, if such reference constitutes reversible error.”
Weathers v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 793 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Kan. 1992). “00 pursuant to K.S.A. 60-19a01. The court previously rejected an identical attack made by AFM on the actual damages awarded pursuant to plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim, id.”
— K.S.A. § 60-19a01(d) — 4 cases
Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 837 P.2d 348 (Kan. 1992). “44-501; consequently, LSI is not vicariously liable for Nanny’s negligence and LSI’s motion for a directed verdict should have been sustained; and (4) the entire K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-19a01 pain and suffering statutory limit of *402 $250,000 should not have been imposed on LSI as…”
Tamplin v. Star Lumber & Supply Co., 836 P.2d 1102 (Kan. 1992). “We next consider whether the Tamplins’ counsel made an improper reference to, the K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-19a01 $250,000 cap on pain and suffering, and, if so, if such reference constitutes reversible error.”
Gann v. Joeckel, 884 P.2d 451 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “The trial court first determined LSI’s share of the pain and suffering to be $657,300 (40% of $1,643,250) and then reduced LSI’s portion of the award to $250,000 as required under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-19a01. This is the same procedure followed by the court in the present case.”
Dickey Ex Rel. Dickey v. Daughety, 905 P.2d 697 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “” K.S.A. 60-19a01(d) provides that entry of judgment for a capped recovery “shall occur after consideration of comparative negligence principles in K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-19a01(f) — 2 cases
Cott v. Peppermint Twist Mgmt. Co., 856 P.2d 906 (Kan. 1993). “In Weathers , a diversity case applying Kansas law, the issue was whether the statutory cap contained in K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-19a01 applies to claims of malicious prosecution or Outrage.”
Tamplin v. Star Lumber & Supply Co., 836 P.2d 1102 (Kan. 1992). “We next consider whether the Tamplins’ counsel made an improper reference to, the K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-19a01 $250,000 cap on pain and suffering, and, if so, if such reference constitutes reversible error.”
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.