Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-3306 (2026)

Seller not subject to liability, when

✓ current as of May 2026

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

60-3306. Seller not subject to liability, when. (a) A product seller shall not be subject to liability in a product liability claim arising from an alleged defect in a product, if the product seller establishes that: (1) Such seller had no knowledge of the defect;

(2) such seller in the performance of any duties the seller performed, or was required to perform, could not have discovered the defect while exercising reasonable care;

(3) such seller was not a manufacturer of the defective product or product component;

(4) the manufacturer of the defective product or product component is subject to service of process either under the laws of the state of Kansas or the domicile of the person making the product liability claim; and

(5) any judgment against the manufacturer obtained by the person making the product liability claim would be reasonably certain of being satisfied.

(b) A product seller that is a retail seller of used products shall not be subject to liability in a product liability claim arising from an alleged defect in a used product sold by the retail seller, if the retail seller establishes that:

(1) Such seller is exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986;

(2) the product liability claim is for strict liability in tort; or

(3) (A) Such seller resold the product after the product was used by a consumer or other product user;

(B) the product was sold in substantially the same condition as it was when it was acquired for resale;

(C) the manufacturer of the defective product or product component is subject to service of process either under the laws of the state of Kansas or the domicile of the person making the product liability claim; and

(D) any judgment against the manufacturer obtained by the person making the product liability claim would be reasonably certain of being satisfied.

History: L. 1981, ch. 231, § 6; L. 2012, ch. 129, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1946–2024 · leading case: Cooper v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Kan. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cooper v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Kan. 2004). · cites it 10× “§ 60-3301 et seq. Alternatively, defendants argue that even if Zimmer Maxon is a “product seller” under the KPLA, it is entitled to the seller immunity provisions set forth at K.”

Danaher v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 779 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (D. Kan. 2011). · cites it 6× “The moving parties rely solely on the Roth Affidavit to support their claim that Wild Oats is an “innocent seller” and therefore is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's product liability claims under K.S.A. § 60-3306. Without the Roth Affidavit, the moving parties have no…”

Gaumer v. Rossville Truck & Tractor Co., 257 P.3d 292 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 60-3306 provides that a seller ‘shall not be subject to liability under circumstances set forth.”

Alvarado v. JC Penney Co., Inc., 713 F. Supp. 1389 (D. Kan. 1989). · cites it 12× “The “retailer exception,” K.S.A. 60-3306, provides as follows: A product seller shall not be subject to liability in a product liability claim arising from an alleged defect in a product, if the product seller establishes that: (a) Such seller had no knowledge of the defect; (b)…”

Davis v. United States Gauge, 844 F. Supp. 1443 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 11× “K.S.A. 60-3306. For purposes of summary judgment, Victor assumes Davis’ employer purchased the gauge in question from Brown Welding Supply, who purchased it from Victor, who in turn purchased it from U.”

Stillie v. AM Int'l, Inc., 850 F. Supp. 960 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 11× “Defendant Johnson seeks reconsideration of the portion of our prior order discussing Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3306 (1983 & Supp.1993).”

Nat'l Gypsum Co. v. Dalemark Indus., Inc., 773 F. Supp. 1476 (D. Kan. 1991). · cites it 5× “Plaintiff seeks sum *1482 mary judgment against Dalemark on the following counts: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (4) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.”

Stair v. Gaylord, 659 P.2d 178 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 2× “The Products Liability Act, K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 60-3301 et seq., now excuses a seller from liability for a defective product manufactured elsewhere if he had no knowledge of the defect and could not have discovered the defect while exercising reasonable care.”

Stillie v. AM Int'l, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 370 (D. Kan. 1993). · cites it 8× “Defendant next raises Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3306, which provides that a product seller is not subject to liability if the seller can establish: 1) the seller had no knowledge of the defect; 2) seller could not have discovered the defect; 3) the seller was not a manufacturer; 4) the…”

Golden v. Den-Mat Corp., 276 P.3d 773 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “60-3302(c) (defining product liability claim); K.S.A. 60-3306 (outlining limitations on liability of product seller).”

Gaumer v. Rossville Truck & Tractor Co., 202 P.3d 81 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “The elements of the seller’s knowledge of a defect and the seller’s responsibility to discover the defect are within the statutory prerequisites for seller’s immunity from product liability contained in K.S.A. 60-3306, which provides: “A product seller shall not be subject to…”

McCroy Ex Rel. McCroy v. Coastal Mart, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (D. Kan. 2002). · cites it 3× “” This section provides, in substance, that a product seller shall not be subject to liability for a defective product if the product seller establishes the following: (1) The seller had no knowledge of the defect; (2) the seller could not have discovered the defect while…”

Show all 35 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-3306(a) — 5 cases

Alvarado v. JC Penney Co., Inc., 713 F. Supp. 1389 (D. Kan. 1989). “The “retailer exception,” K.S.A. 60-3306, provides as follows: A product seller shall not be subject to liability in a product liability claim arising from an alleged defect in a product, if the product seller establishes that: (a) Such seller had no knowledge of the defect; (b)…”

Cooper v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Kan. 2004). “§ 60-3301 et seq. Alternatively, defendants argue that even if Zimmer Maxon is a “product seller” under the KPLA, it is entitled to the seller immunity provisions set forth at K.”

Stillie v. AM Int'l, Inc., 850 F. Supp. 960 (D. Kan. 1994). “Defendant Johnson seeks reconsideration of the portion of our prior order discussing Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3306 (1983 & Supp.1993).”

Stillie v. AM Int'l, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 370 (D. Kan. 1993). “Defendant next raises Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3306, which provides that a product seller is not subject to liability if the seller can establish: 1) the seller had no knowledge of the defect; 2) seller could not have discovered the defect; 3) the seller was not a manufacturer; 4) the…”

Sangha v. Volkswagen AG (D. Kan. 2020).

— K.S.A. § 60-3306(b) — 4 cases

Davis v. United States Gauge, 844 F. Supp. 1443 (D. Kan. 1994). “K.S.A. 60-3306. For purposes of summary judgment, Victor assumes Davis’ employer purchased the gauge in question from Brown Welding Supply, who purchased it from Victor, who in turn purchased it from U.”

Larry D. Hudson, LDH, Inc. v. Townsend Assocs., 704 F. Supp. 207 (D. Kan. 1988).

Schoen by & Through Schoen v. Spotlight Co., 979 F. Supp. 1379 (D. Kan. 1997).

— K.S.A. § 60-3306(c) — 2 cases

Nat'l Gypsum Co. v. Dalemark Indus., Inc., 773 F. Supp. 1476 (D. Kan. 1991). “Plaintiff seeks sum *1482 mary judgment against Dalemark on the following counts: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (4) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.”

— K.S.A. § 60-3306(e) — 1 case

Larry D. Hudson, LDH, Inc. v. Townsend Assocs., 704 F. Supp. 207 (D. Kan. 1988).

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.