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

K.S.A. § 60-3307 (2026)

Inadmissible evidence

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

60-3307. Inadmissible evidence. (a) In a product liability claim, the following evidence shall not be admissible for any purpose:

(1) Evidence of any advancements or changes in technical or other knowledge or techniques, in design theory or philosophy, in manufacturing or testing knowledge, techniques or processes in labeling, warning of risks or hazards, instructions for the use of such product, if such advancements or changes have been made, learned or placed into common use subsequent to the time the product in issue was designed, formulated, tested, manufactured or sold by the manufacturer; and

(2) evidence of any changes made in the designing, planning, formulating, testing, preparing, manufacturing, packaging, warnings, labeling or instructing for use of, or with regard to, the product in issue, or any similar product, which changes were made subsequent to the time the product in issue was designed, formulated, tested, manufactured or sold by the manufacturer.

(b) This section does not require the exclusion of evidence of a subsequent measure if offered to impeach a witness for the manufacturer or seller of a product who has expressly denied the feasibility of such a measure.

History: L. 1986, ch. 214, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: Griffin v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 124 P.3d 57 (Kan. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Griffin v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 124 P.3d 57 (Kan. 2005). · cites it 22× “Suzuki argues that the statute, K.S.A. 60-3307, absolutely requires exclusion from evidence the J-2 vehicle and certain of Leffert’s information.”
Patton v. Hutchinson Wil-Rich Mfg. Co., 861 P.2d 1299 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 6× “The K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3307 operative event is the date when the product was first designed or sold; consequently, what might occur thereafter can have no bearing on the issue of an alleged defect in the product.”
Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp., 852 F. Supp. 933 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 10× “166 does not indicate any advancement or changes made in warnings, labels, or instructions, K.S.A. 60-3307 does not prohibit its introduction.”
Blackburn, Inc. v. Harnischfeger Corp., 773 F. Supp. 296 (D. Kan. 1991). · cites it 7× “K.S.A. 60-3307 (1990 Supp.) applies specifically to the question of subsequent remedial measure evidence in product .”
Leiker Ex Rel. Leiker v. Gafford, 778 P.2d 823 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 2× “hat plaintiffs were bound by selected testimony of adverse witnesses; (g) the court erred in holding that the conduct of Marshall and Gafford could insulate Abbott from liability; and (h) the court erred in holding as a matter of law that Abbott had no duty to warn Marshall as…”
Stephen Brent WHEELER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN DEERE Co., a Delaware Corp., Defendant-Appellant, 862 F.2d 1404 (10th Cir. 1988). “In 1986, the Kansas legislature codified this rule at Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3307 (Supp.1987) (evidence of subsequent measures are admissible only "if offered to impeach a witness for the manufacturer or seller of a product who has expressly denied the feasibility of such a…”
Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 935 F.2d 1090 (10th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “Deere contends that Wheeler I overturned Herndon and that the enactment of Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3307 (1990 Cum.Supp.) altered Kansas law in product liability actions by prohibiting evidence of subsequent remedial measures.”
Arnold v. Riddell, Inc., 882 F. Supp. 979 (D. Kan. 1995). · cites it 2× “Stalnaker regarding the tests before he was called as a witness. The admission of this evidence was, therefore, within the court’s discretion.”
Gaumer v. Rossville Truck & Tractor Co., 257 P.3d 292 (Kan. 2011). “at 791, 793 ; see K.S.A. 60-3307(b). Delaney concluded with the following useful summary of significant product liability law in Kansas: “[W]hether a design defect in a product exists is determined using the consumer expectations test.”
Norwood v. Raytheon Co., 237 F.R.D. 581 (W.D. Tex. 2006). “, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3307 (a) (1994) (prohibiting evidence of subsequent remedial measures in products liability cases “for any purpose”); Tex.”
Floyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 960 P.2d 763 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “Second, the service manual was intended to “prevent inisassembly during the repair process.”
Butler v. Daimler Trucks North Am. LLC (D. Kan. 2022). · cites it 2× “DTNA argues that given NHTSA’s statements about shortcomings and perceived safety risks of earlier systems, there is “no doubt” that NHTSA will promulgate performance standards exceeding the technology that existed in 2014.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-3307(a) — 3 cases
Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp., 852 F. Supp. 933 (D. Kan. 1994). “166 does not indicate any advancement or changes made in warnings, labels, or instructions, K.S.A. 60-3307 does not prohibit its introduction.”
Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 935 F.2d 1090 (10th Cir. 1991). “Deere contends that Wheeler I overturned Herndon and that the enactment of Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3307 (1990 Cum.Supp.) altered Kansas law in product liability actions by prohibiting evidence of subsequent remedial measures.”
Champlain Enter., Inc. v. United States, 957 F. Supp. 26 (N.D.N.Y. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 60-3307(a)(1) — 1 case
Griffin v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 124 P.3d 57 (Kan. 2005). “Suzuki argues that the statute, K.S.A. 60-3307, absolutely requires exclusion from evidence the J-2 vehicle and certain of Leffert’s information.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3307(a)(2) — 1 case
Griffin v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 124 P.3d 57 (Kan. 2005). “Suzuki argues that the statute, K.S.A. 60-3307, absolutely requires exclusion from evidence the J-2 vehicle and certain of Leffert’s information.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3307(a)(l) — 1 case
Patton v. Hutchinson Wil-Rich Mfg. Co., 861 P.2d 1299 (Kan. 1993). “The K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3307 operative event is the date when the product was first designed or sold; consequently, what might occur thereafter can have no bearing on the issue of an alleged defect in the product.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3307(b) — 3 cases
Griffin v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 124 P.3d 57 (Kan. 2005). “Suzuki argues that the statute, K.S.A. 60-3307, absolutely requires exclusion from evidence the J-2 vehicle and certain of Leffert’s information.”
Gaumer v. Rossville Truck & Tractor Co., 257 P.3d 292 (Kan. 2011). “at 791, 793 ; see K.S.A. 60-3307(b). Delaney concluded with the following useful summary of significant product liability law in Kansas: “[W]hether a design defect in a product exists is determined using the consumer expectations test.”
Champlain Enter., Inc. v. United States, 957 F. Supp. 26 (N.D.N.Y. 1997).
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.