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

K.S.A. § 60-3701 (2026)

Punitive and exemplary damages; separate proceeding for determination of amount; considerations; limitations; maximum amount of award; application limited

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

60-3701. Punitive and exemplary damages; separate proceeding for determination of amount; considerations; limitations; maximum amount of award; application limited. (a) In any civil action in which exemplary or punitive damages are recoverable, the trier of fact shall determine, concurrent with all other issues presented, whether such damages shall be allowed. If such damages are allowed, a separate proceeding shall be conducted by the court to determine the amount of such damages to be awarded.

(b) At a proceeding to determine the amount of exemplary or punitive damages to be awarded under this section, the court may consider:

(1) The likelihood at the time of the alleged misconduct that serious harm would arise from the defendant's misconduct;

(2) the degree of the defendant's awareness of that likelihood;

(3) the profitability of the defendant's misconduct;

(4) the duration of the misconduct and any intentional concealment of it;

(5) the attitude and conduct of the defendant upon discovery of the misconduct;

(6) the financial condition of the defendant; and

(7) the total deterrent effect of other damages and punishment imposed upon the defendant as a result of the misconduct, including, but not limited to, compensatory, exemplary and punitive damage awards to persons in situations similar to those of the claimant and the severity of the criminal penalties to which the defendant has been or may be subjected.

At the conclusion of the proceeding, the court shall determine the amount of exemplary or punitive damages to be awarded and shall enter judgment for that amount.

(c) In any civil action where claims for exemplary or punitive damages are included, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence in the initial phase of the trial, that the defendant acted toward the plaintiff with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud or malice.

(d) In no case shall exemplary or punitive damages be assessed pursuant to this section against:

(1) A principal or employer for the acts of an agent or employee unless the questioned conduct was authorized or ratified by a person expressly empowered to do so on behalf of the principal or employer; or

(2) an association, partnership or corporation for the acts of a member, partner or shareholder unless such association, partnership or corporation authorized or ratified the questioned conduct.

(e) Except as provided by subsection (f), no award of exemplary or punitive damages pursuant to this section shall exceed the lesser of:

(1) The annual gross income earned by the defendant, as determined by the court based upon the defendant's highest gross annual income earned for any one of the five years immediately before the act for which such damages are awarded; or

(2) $5 million.

(f) In lieu of the limitation provided by subsection (e), if the court finds that the profitability of the defendant's misconduct exceeds or is expected to exceed the limitation of subsection (e), the limitation on the amount of exemplary or punitive damages which the court may award shall be an amount equal to 1½ times the amount of profit which the defendant gained or is expected to gain as a result of the defendant's misconduct.

(g) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any action governed by another statute establishing or limiting the amount of exemplary or punitive damages, or prescribing procedures for the award of such damages, in such action.

(h) As used in this section the terms defined in K.S.A. 60-3401 and amendments thereto shall have the meaning provided by that statute.

(i) The provisions of this section shall apply only to an action based upon a cause of action accruing on or after July 1, 1987 and before July 1, 1988.

History: L. 1987, ch. 216, § 1; L. 1988, ch. 209, § 2; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 58× “From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
Smith v. Printup, 938 P.2d 1261 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 34× ““From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). · cites it 4× “• Kansas — Kan. Stat. Ann. §§60-3701 (e) and (f) (1994) (in general, caps punitive damages at lesser of defendant’s annual gross income, or $5 million).”
Gillespie v. Seymour, 823 P.2d 782 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 8× “PUNITIVE DAMAGES Defendants next contend that: (1) any award of punitive damages was unwarranted in this case; (2) the awards of punitive damages were excessive and contrary to the requirements of K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 60-3701. The punitive damage awards were as follows: For the…”
Gillespie v. Seymour, 877 P.2d 409 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 24× “We stated: “The trial court found the plaintiffs’ cause of action herein accrued in August 1987. Without stating any legal basis therefor, the trial court circumvented the operation of the [K.”
Mynatt v. Collis, 57 P.3d 513 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 6× “60-3701 and 60-3702, which places the calculation of the amount of punitive damages with the trial court instead of a jury, we applied an abuse of discretion standard when *883 reviewing a punitive damages award. [Citations omitted.]” The Smith court further explained: “…”
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Am. Red Ball Transit Co., 938 P.2d 1281 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 10× “The trial court allowed the Smith plaintiffs (Smith) to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages in accordance with K.S.A. 60-3701 against Southwest, Printup, and Red Ball in conjunction with the survivor action.”
Aves Ex Rel. Aves v. Shah, 906 P.2d 642 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 6× “In Printup , the court analyzed whether K.S.A. 60-3701 violated equal protection.”
Lindsey v. Miami Cnty. Nat'l Bank, 984 P.2d 719 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 5× “ase state: “(d) In no case shall exemplary or punitive damages be assessed pursuant to this section against: (1) A principal or employer for the acts of an agent or employee unless the questioned conduct was authorized or ratified by a person expressly empowered to do so on…”
Cerretti v. Flint Hills Rural Elec. Coop. Ass'n, 837 P.2d 330 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 4× “Flint Hills argues there was no clear and convincing evidence of wantonness or of a wanton act as required by K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-3701. It contends that under that statute, a wanton omission, i.”
Gillespie v. Seymour, 853 P.2d 692 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 11× ““K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 60-3701 provides, in pertinent part: ‘(e) Except as provided by subsection (f), no award of exemplary or punitive damages pursuant to this section shall exceed the lesser of: (1) The annual gross income earned by the defendant, as determined by the court based…”
Hawkinson v. Bennett, 962 P.2d 445 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 4× “]” The Smith court further explained: *606 “Subject to the provisions of K.”
Show all 79 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(a) — 4 cases
BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). “• Kansas — Kan. Stat. Ann. §§60-3701 (e) and (f) (1994) (in general, caps punitive damages at lesser of defendant’s annual gross income, or $5 million).”
Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). “From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
Vance Ex Rel. Wood v. Midwest Coast Transp., Inc., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (D. Kan. 2004).
Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994).
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(b) — 10 cases
Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). “From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
Smith v. Printup, 938 P.2d 1261 (Kan. 1997). ““From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
York v. InTrust Bank, N.A., 962 P.2d 405 (Kan. 1998).
Wright v. Bachmurski, 29 P.3d 979 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
Vance Ex Rel. Wood v. Midwest Coast Transp., Inc., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (D. Kan. 2004).
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(b)(1) — 1 case
Smith v. Printup, 938 P.2d 1261 (Kan. 1997). ““From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(b)(3) — 1 case
Gillespie v. Seymour, 877 P.2d 409 (Kan. 1994). “We stated: “The trial court found the plaintiffs’ cause of action herein accrued in August 1987. Without stating any legal basis therefor, the trial court circumvented the operation of the [K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(b)(5) — 1 case
Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). “From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(b)(6) — 1 case
State v. Herron, 335 P.3d 1211 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(b)(l) — 1 case
Mynatt v. Collis, 57 P.3d 513 (Kan. 2002). “60-3701 and 60-3702, which places the calculation of the amount of punitive damages with the trial court instead of a jury, we applied an abuse of discretion standard when *883 reviewing a punitive damages award. [Citations omitted.]” The Smith court further explained: “…”
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(c) — 20 cases
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 601 A.2d 633 (Md. 1992).
Horizon Holdings, L.L.C. v. Genmar Holdings, Inc., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (D. Kan. 2002).
Mason v. Texaco, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 1472 (D. Kan. 1990).
Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 874 P.2d 1188 (Kan. 1994).
Cerretti v. Flint Hills Rural Elec. Coop. Ass'n, 837 P.2d 330 (Kan. 1992). “Flint Hills argues there was no clear and convincing evidence of wantonness or of a wanton act as required by K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-3701. It contends that under that statute, a wanton omission, i.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(d) — 5 cases
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Am. Red Ball Transit Co., 938 P.2d 1281 (Kan. 1997). “The trial court allowed the Smith plaintiffs (Smith) to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages in accordance with K.S.A. 60-3701 against Southwest, Printup, and Red Ball in conjunction with the survivor action.”
Miller v. B.H.B. Enter., Inc., 568 S.E.2d 219 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
Flint Hills Rural Elec. Coop. Ass'n v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins., 941 P.2d 374 (Kan. 1997).
Stewart v. Se. Kansas R.R., 24 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (D. Kan. 1998).
Preston v. Income Producing Mgmt., Inc., 871 F. Supp. 411 (D. Kan. 1994).
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(d)(1) — 10 cases
Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). “From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Am. Red Ball Transit Co., 938 P.2d 1281 (Kan. 1997). “The trial court allowed the Smith plaintiffs (Smith) to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages in accordance with K.S.A. 60-3701 against Southwest, Printup, and Red Ball in conjunction with the survivor action.”
Lowe v. Surpas Resource Corp., 253 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (D. Kan. 2003).
Stallings v. Werner Enter., Inc., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (D. Kan. 2009).
Smith v. Printup, 938 P.2d 1261 (Kan. 1997). ““From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(d)(2) — 1 case
Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). “From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(d)(l) — 6 cases
Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). “From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
Smith v. Printup, 938 P.2d 1261 (Kan. 1997). ““From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
Greenhorn v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 258 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (D. Kan. 2003).
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Am. Red Ball Transit Co., 938 P.2d 1281 (Kan. 1997). “The trial court allowed the Smith plaintiffs (Smith) to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages in accordance with K.S.A. 60-3701 against Southwest, Printup, and Red Ball in conjunction with the survivor action.”
Miller v. B.H.B. Enter., Inc., 568 S.E.2d 219 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(e) — 9 cases
Smith v. Printup, 938 P.2d 1261 (Kan. 1997). ““From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). “• Kansas — Kan. Stat. Ann. §§60-3701 (e) and (f) (1994) (in general, caps punitive damages at lesser of defendant’s annual gross income, or $5 million).”
Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). “From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
Acker v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 215 F.R.D. 645 (D. Kan. 2003).
Gillespie v. Seymour, 877 P.2d 409 (Kan. 1994). “We stated: “The trial court found the plaintiffs’ cause of action herein accrued in August 1987. Without stating any legal basis therefor, the trial court circumvented the operation of the [K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(e)(2) — 2 cases
Grove v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 855 P.2d 968 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
Oleson v. KMart Corp., 185 F.R.D. 631 (D. Kan. 1999).
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(e)(l) — 2 cases
Gillespie v. Seymour, 853 P.2d 692 (Kan. 1993). ““K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 60-3701 provides, in pertinent part: ‘(e) Except as provided by subsection (f), no award of exemplary or punitive damages pursuant to this section shall exceed the lesser of: (1) The annual gross income earned by the defendant, as determined by the court based…”
Gillespie v. Seymour, 877 P.2d 409 (Kan. 1994). “We stated: “The trial court found the plaintiffs’ cause of action herein accrued in August 1987. Without stating any legal basis therefor, the trial court circumvented the operation of the [K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(f) — 4 cases
Smith v. Printup, 938 P.2d 1261 (Kan. 1997). ““From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
Gillespie v. Seymour, 877 P.2d 409 (Kan. 1994). “We stated: “The trial court found the plaintiffs’ cause of action herein accrued in August 1987. Without stating any legal basis therefor, the trial court circumvented the operation of the [K.”
Gillespie v. Seymour, 853 P.2d 692 (Kan. 1993). ““K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 60-3701 provides, in pertinent part: ‘(e) Except as provided by subsection (f), no award of exemplary or punitive damages pursuant to this section shall exceed the lesser of: (1) The annual gross income earned by the defendant, as determined by the court based…”
Oleson v. KMart Corp., 185 F.R.D. 631 (D. Kan. 1999).
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(i) — 3 cases
Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). “From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
Mason v. Texaco, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 1472 (D. Kan. 1990).
Grove v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 855 P.2d 968 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 60-3701(é) — 1 case
Smith v. Printup, 938 P.2d 1261 (Kan. 1997). ““From the very beginning, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701. The trial court rejected this contention and found the statute to be constitutional.”
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.