Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-19a02 (2026)

Personal injury action defined; limitation established; itemization of verdict; no jury instruction on limitation to be given; wrongful death limitation not affected; limited to actions accruing on or after July 1, 1988

✓ current as of May 2026

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

60-19a02. Personal injury action defined; limitation established; itemization of verdict; no jury instruction on limitation to be given; wrongful death limitation not affected; limited to actions accruing on or after July 1, 1988. (a) As used in this section "personal injury action" means any action seeking damages for personal injury or death.

(b) In any personal injury action, the total amount recoverable by each party from all defendants for all claims for noneconomic loss shall not exceed a sum total of:

(1) $250,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 1988, and before July 1, 2014;

(2) $300,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2014, and before July 1, 2018;

(3) $325,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2018, and before July 1, 2022; or

(4) $350,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2022.

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

(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 noneconomic loss which exceeds the limit of this section, the court shall enter judgment for all the party's claims for noneconomic loss in the amount of:

(1) $250,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 1988, and before July 1, 2014;

(2) $300,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2014, and before July 1, 2018;

(3) $325,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2018, and before July 1, 2022; or

(4) $350,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2022.

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, 1988.

History: L. 1988, ch. 216, § 3; L. 2014, ch. 84, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Hilburn v. Enerpipe Ltd., 442 P.3d 509 (Kan. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hilburn v. Enerpipe Ltd., 442 P.3d 509 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 91× “The noneconomic damages cap under K.S.A. 60-19a02 violates the right protected by section 5, because it intrudes upon the jury's determination of the compensation owed personal injury plaintiffs to redress their injuries.”

Miller v. Johnson, 289 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 53× “Our initial focus is the constitutionality of K.S.A. 60-19a02, which operated to cap Miller’s jury award for noneconomic damages.”

Samsel v. Wheeler Transp. Servs., Inc., 789 P.2d 541 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 20× “K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 60-19a02, which applies to causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 1988, differs from 60-19a01 in that medical malpractice liability actions are no longer exempted and the term "pain and suffering" was replaced by "noneconomic loss.”

Kloster v. Hancock (In Re Rockhill Pain Specialists, P.A.), 412 P.3d 1008 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 16× “*189 Because Hancock fails to establish that defamation is a personal injury action, the district court did not err in failing to reduce Kloster's award to the $250,000 statutory cap established in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-19a02. Hancock argued for the first time in his motion for a…”

Hilburn v. Enerpipe, Ltd., 370 P.3d 428 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 15× “Over Hilburn’s objection, the district court reduced her damages pursuant to the Kansas noneconomic loss damages statute, K.S.A. 60-19a02. On appeal, Hilburn challenges the constitutionality of the statutory cap as applied to a negligence claim that does not involve medical…”

Clayman v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (D. Kan. 2004). · cites it 6× “LIMITING NONECONOMIC DAMAGES PER K.S.A. § 60-19a02 In its motion for summary judgment, defendant asks the court to apply K.”

Cott v. Peppermint Twist Mgmt. Co., 856 P.2d 906 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 4× “The trial court applied K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-19a02 and reduced the damages for past and future pain and suffering to the statutory cap of $250,000.”

Patton v. TIC United Corp., 77 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 1996). · cites it 8× “The plaintiffs, by cross-appeal, challenge the district court’s application of a Kansas damage cap, Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-19a02, to reduce the jury’s award of noneco-nomic damages.”

Williams v. Lawton, 207 P.3d 1027 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 2× “Lawton subsequently filed several motions, including a motion for a cap on damages to be applied to the verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-19a02 and a motion for judgment as a matter of law (notwithstanding the verdict) or, in the alternative, a motion for new trial.”

Williams v. Lawton, 170 P.3d 414 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “*430 The record below reflects that a motion was filed in the district court by Williams to declare K.S.A. 60-19a02 unconstitutional and for an evidentiary hearing on the question.”

McGinnes v. Wesley Med. Ctr., 224 P.3d 581 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “60-1903 and K.S.A. 60-19a02 to the jury verdict. The plaintiffs objected, contending statutory caps constituted an avoidance or affirmative defense that had to be pled under K.”

Bowling v. United States, 740 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Kan. 2010). · cites it 4× “Under Kansas law, these damages are “noneconomic loss,” 80 and subject to K.S.A. § 60-19a02, which caps such noneconomic damages at $250,000 in any action seeking damages for personal injury or death.”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-19a02(a) — 2 cases

Hilburn v. Enerpipe Ltd., 442 P.3d 509 (Kan. 2019). “The noneconomic damages cap under K.S.A. 60-19a02 violates the right protected by section 5, because it intrudes upon the jury's determination of the compensation owed personal injury plaintiffs to redress their injuries.”

Kloster v. Hancock (In Re Rockhill Pain Specialists, P.A.), 412 P.3d 1008 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “*189 Because Hancock fails to establish that defamation is a personal injury action, the district court did not err in failing to reduce Kloster's award to the $250,000 statutory cap established in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-19a02. Hancock argued for the first time in his motion for a…”

— K.S.A. § 60-19a02(b) — 7 cases

Est. of Sisk v. Manzanares, 270 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (D. Kan. 2003).

Bowling v. United States, 740 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Kan. 2010). “Under Kansas law, these damages are “noneconomic loss,” 80 and subject to K.S.A. § 60-19a02, which caps such noneconomic damages at $250,000 in any action seeking damages for personal injury or death.”

Wagner v. SFX Motor Sports, Inc., 522 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (D. Kan. 2007).

Patton v. TIC United Corp., 859 F. Supp. 509 (D. Kan. 1994).

— K.S.A. § 60-19a02(b)(2) — 1 case

Esparza v. Baker (D. Kan. 2019).

— K.S.A. § 60-19a02(c) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 60-19a02(d) — 5 cases

Miller v. Johnson, 289 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2012). “Our initial focus is the constitutionality of K.S.A. 60-19a02, which operated to cap Miller’s jury award for noneconomic damages.”

Burnette v. Eubanks, 379 P.3d 372 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).

Tamplin v. Star Lumber & Supply Co., 824 P.2d 219 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).

Heuton v. United States (D. Kan. 2025).

— K.S.A. § 60-19a02(f) — 3 cases

Miller v. Johnson, 289 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2012). “Our initial focus is the constitutionality of K.S.A. 60-19a02, which operated to cap Miller’s jury award for noneconomic damages.”

Cott v. Peppermint Twist Mgmt. Co., 856 P.2d 906 (Kan. 1993). “The trial court applied K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-19a02 and reduced the damages for past and future pain and suffering to the statutory cap of $250,000.”

Tamplin v. Star Lumber & Supply Co., 836 P.2d 1102 (Kan. 1992).

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.