60-258a.
Comparative negligence.
(a)
Effect of contributory negligence.
The contributory negligence of a party in a civil action does not bar that party or its legal representative from recovering damages for negligence resulting in death, personal injury, property damage or economic loss, if that party's negligence was less than the causal negligence of the party or parties against whom a claim is made, but the award of damages to that party must be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to that party. If a party claims damages for a decedent's wrongful death, the negligence of the decedent, if any, must be imputed to that party.
(b)
Special verdicts or findings required.
When the comparative negligence of the parties is an issue, the jury must return special verdicts, or in the absence of a jury, the court must make special findings, determining the percentage of negligence attributable to each party and the total amount of damages sustained by each claimant. The court must determine the appropriate judgment.
(c)
Joining additional parties.
On motion of any party against whom a claim is asserted for negligence resulting in death, personal injury, property damage or economic loss, any other person whose causal negligence is claimed to have contributed to the death, personal injury, property damage or economic loss, must be joined as an additional party.
(d)
Apportioning liability.
When the comparative negligence of the parties is an issue and recovery is permitted against more than one party, each party is liable for that portion of the total dollar amount awarded as damages to a claimant in the proportion that the amount of that party's causal negligence bears to the amount of the causal negligence attributed to all parties against whom recovery is permitted.
(e)
Applicability.
This section is applicable to actions under this chapter and to actions commenced under the code of civil procedure for limited actions.
History:
L. 1974, ch. 239, § 1; L. 1976, ch. 251, § 4; L. 1987, ch. 221, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 132; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 618 P.2d 788 (Kan. 1980).
· cites it 22× “Our comparative negligence statute, K.S.A. 60-258a, became effective July 1, 1974.”
Ellis v. Union Pac. R.R., 643 P.2d 158 (Kan. 1982).
· cites it 36× “egligence action wherein Union Pacific Railroad Company (defendant-appellant) appeals the district court's dismissal of Union Pacific's claim for contribution in proportion to the percentage of causal negligence attributable to the governmental entities, City of Onaga, Mill…”
Brown v. Keill, 580 P.2d 867 (Kan. 1978).
· cites it 15× “The primary issues raised on appeal require a construction of the provisions of K.S.A. 60-258a, commonly referred to as the Kansas comparative negligence statute.”
Dodge City Implement, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 1265 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 18× “The panel concluded that “[a] defendant seeking to minimize its liability in a comparative fault situation not involving a chain of distribution or similar commercial relationship must do so by comparing the fault of other defendants pursuant to K.S.A. 60-258a in order to reduce…”
Stueve v. Am. Honda Motors Co., Inc., 457 F. Supp. 740 (D. Kan. 1978).
· cites it 23× “Rather, we observe that insofar as no distinction is made in cases such as Cullen between joint action and joint liability, and thus rules of joint liability determine the effect of a release, there may be no reason to question the nature of the act alleged in…”
Beach v. M & N Modern Hydraulic Press Co., 428 F. Supp. 956 (D. Kan. 1977).
· cites it 18× “K.S.A. § 60-258a in its entirety reads: “Contributory negligence as bar to recovery in civil actions abolished, when; award of damages based on comparative negligence; imputation of negligence, when; special verdicts and findings; joinder of parties; proportioned liability.”
Kansas Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., Inc., 927 P.2d 466 (Kan. 1996).
· cites it 12× “In asserting its contribution and indemnity claims, Reimer & Koger argues that these cases are governed, at least in part, by Kansas law as it existed before July 1, 1987, when the Kansas comparative negligence statute (K.S.A. 60-258a) was made applicable to economic loss.”
Wooderson v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 681 P.2d 1038 (Kan. 1984).
· cites it 6× “This argument is made in light of K.S.A. 60-258a, which reads in part as follows: "60-258a.”
Gaulden v. Burlington N., Inc., 654 P.2d 383 (Kan. 1982).
· cites it 12× “Does a railroad, in a damage action brought against it under FELA and premised upon the railroad's negligence, have the right under Kansas law to indemnification or contribution from a third party whose negligence caused or contributed to the injury? *212 We turn to explore this…”
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. v. Huff, 704 P.2d 372 (Kan. 1985).
· cites it 13× “DOES THE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE STATUTE, K.S.A. 60-258a, APPLY TO AN ACTION FOR ECONOMIC LOSS BROUGHT BY THE RECEIVER OF A SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR NEGLIGENT BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES UNDER BOTH THE COMMON LAW…”
McCart v. Muir, 641 P.2d 384 (Kan. 1982).
· cites it 7× ““The intent and purpose of the legislature in adopting K.S.A. 60-258a was to impose individual liability for damages based on the proportionate fault of all parties to the occurrence which gave rise to the injuries and damages even though one or more parties cannot be joined…”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Ashley, 749 F. Supp. 1065 (D. Kan. 1990).
· cites it 13× “COMPARATIVE LIABILITY The Ashley defendants assert in their Answer that: [T]he negligence of other defendants [the Carman defendants] and of the [FDIC] in its capacity as receiver, and of the [FDIC] in its capacity of bank supervisor] and of other entities not now a party, and…”
— K.S.A. § 60-258a(a) — 24 cases
McCart v. Muir, 641 P.2d 384 (Kan. 1982).
““The intent and purpose of the legislature in adopting K.S.A. 60-258a was to impose individual liability for damages based on the proportionate fault of all parties to the occurrence which gave rise to the injuries and damages even though one or more parties cannot be joined…”
Stueve v. Am. Honda Motors Co., Inc., 457 F. Supp. 740 (D. Kan. 1978).
“Rather, we observe that insofar as no distinction is made in cases such as Cullen between joint action and joint liability, and thus rules of joint liability determine the effect of a release, there may be no reason to question the nature of the act alleged in…”
— K.S.A. § 60-258a(b) — 10 cases
Beach v. M & N Modern Hydraulic Press Co., 428 F. Supp. 956 (D. Kan. 1977).
“K.S.A. § 60-258a in its entirety reads: “Contributory negligence as bar to recovery in civil actions abolished, when; award of damages based on comparative negligence; imputation of negligence, when; special verdicts and findings; joinder of parties; proportioned liability.”
— K.S.A. § 60-258a(c) — 44 cases
Ellis v. Union Pac. R.R., 643 P.2d 158 (Kan. 1982).
“egligence action wherein Union Pacific Railroad Company (defendant-appellant) appeals the district court's dismissal of Union Pacific's claim for contribution in proportion to the percentage of causal negligence attributable to the governmental entities, City of Onaga, Mill…”
Dodge City Implement, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 1265 (Kan. 2009).
“The panel concluded that “[a] defendant seeking to minimize its liability in a comparative fault situation not involving a chain of distribution or similar commercial relationship must do so by comparing the fault of other defendants pursuant to K.S.A. 60-258a in order to reduce…”
Stueve v. Am. Honda Motors Co., Inc., 457 F. Supp. 740 (D. Kan. 1978).
“Rather, we observe that insofar as no distinction is made in cases such as Cullen between joint action and joint liability, and thus rules of joint liability determine the effect of a release, there may be no reason to question the nature of the act alleged in…”
Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 618 P.2d 788 (Kan. 1980).
“Our comparative negligence statute, K.S.A. 60-258a, became effective July 1, 1974.”
— K.S.A. § 60-258a(d) — 22 cases
Beach v. M & N Modern Hydraulic Press Co., 428 F. Supp. 956 (D. Kan. 1977).
“K.S.A. § 60-258a in its entirety reads: “Contributory negligence as bar to recovery in civil actions abolished, when; award of damages based on comparative negligence; imputation of negligence, when; special verdicts and findings; joinder of parties; proportioned liability.”
Dodge City Implement, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 1265 (Kan. 2009).
“The panel concluded that “[a] defendant seeking to minimize its liability in a comparative fault situation not involving a chain of distribution or similar commercial relationship must do so by comparing the fault of other defendants pursuant to K.S.A. 60-258a in order to reduce…”
— K.S.A. § 60-258a(e) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 60-258a(o) — 1 case
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.