K.S.A. § 60-3702

Same; trier of fact determines whether damages allowed; separate proceeding for determination of amount; considerations; limitations; maximum amount of award

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

60-3702. Same; trier of fact determines whether damages allowed; separate proceeding for determination of amount; considerations; limitations; maximum amount of award. (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, unless the court determines such amount is clearly inadequate to penalize the defendant, then the court may award up to 50% of the net worth of the defendant, as determined by the court; 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) 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.

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

History: L. 1988, ch. 209, § 3; L. 1992, ch. 307, § 3; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 105 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Mynatt v. Collis

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mynatt v. Collis (2002) kan · cites it 10× “Mynatt and Mynatt Truck maintain that the district court properly considered the list of seven factors in K.”

Hayes Sight & Sound, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc. (2006) kan · cites it 13× “The other question before the trial court was whether to award punitive damages pursuant to K.S.A. 60-3702. MCMC also cites Patton as referencing two other cases for ratios of approximately 1-to-l and less.”

Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2012) ca10 · cites it 7× “" Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3702 (c). We start by noting that in retaliation claims in Kansas, "punitive damages may not be imposed automatically on an employer when a jury finds unlawful retaliation.”

Alain Ellis Living Trust v. Harvey D. Ellis Living Trust (2018) kan · cites it 17× “58a-1002, the punitive damages provisions in K.S.A. 60-3702 and 60-3703, and the Kansas survival statute, K.”

H. Wayne Palmer & Associates v. Heldor Industries, Inc. (1993) ksd · cites it 24× “The court notes that it deems the Kansas punitíve damages scheme to be substantive in nature *778 and, thus, it follows that K.S.A. § 60-3702 applies in diversity cases in Kansas.”

Scheufler v. General Host Corp. (1995) ksd · cites it 24× “The Kansas statute provides that no punitive damage award shall exceed the lesser of the defendant’s annual gross income (or one half of the defendant’s net worth if the defendant’s annual gross income is determined to be a clearly inadequate penalty) or $5,000,000.”

Ruiz v. Quiktrip Corp. (1993) ksd · cites it 26× “Consequently, the court held a post-trial hearing on June 30, 1993, in accordance with Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3702 (Supp.1992), 1 to determine the amount of punitive damages to be awarded.”

Lindsey v. Miami County National Bank (1999) kan · cites it 8× “The next argument that Lindsey makes is that an employer is automatically liable for punitive damages under K.S.A. 60-3702 for the reckless actions of a management level employee.”

Smith v. Printup (1993) kan · cites it 6× “K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701(i). Language identical to the language plaintiffs challenge, however, kis included in K.”

Capital Solutions, LLC v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. (2010) ksd · cites it 14× “Thus, the fact that the Kansas Supreme Court described a claim for punitive damages as equitable in nature in concluding that the bifurcated process in K.S.A. § 60-3702 did not violate the trial-by-jury provision of the Kansas Constitution, see Smith v.”

Safety Technologies, L.C. v. Biotronix 2000, Inc. (2001) ksd · cites it 15× “On February 5, 2001, this court held a hearing to set punitive damages, as directed by K.S.A. § 60-3702, and to hear argument on the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.”

ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. (2009) ksd · cites it 20× “This issue has been considered by other judges in this district with regard to K.S.A. § 60-3702(a), the general punitive and exemplary damages statute, which bifurcates that punitive damages determination: the jury determines entitlement to punitive damages and the court…”

Show all 105 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(a) — 17 cases

Capital Solutions, LLC v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. (2010) ksd “Thus, the fact that the Kansas Supreme Court described a claim for punitive damages as equitable in nature in concluding that the bifurcated process in K.S.A. § 60-3702 did not violate the trial-by-jury provision of the Kansas Constitution, see Smith v.”

American Maplan Corp. v. Heilmayr (2001) ksd

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Alexander (1994) tex

ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. (2009) ksd “This issue has been considered by other judges in this district with regard to K.S.A. § 60-3702(a), the general punitive and exemplary damages statute, which bifurcates that punitive damages determination: the jury determines entitlement to punitive damages and the court…”

Vance Ex Rel. Wood v. Midwest Coast Transport, Inc. (2004) ksd

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(b) — 24 cases

Mynatt v. Collis (2002) kan “Mynatt and Mynatt Truck maintain that the district court properly considered the list of seven factors in K.”

Beck v. Atlantic Contracting Co. (1994) ksd

McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Central Processors, Inc. (2002) kan

Scheufler v. General Host Corp. (1995) ksd “The Kansas statute provides that no punitive damage award shall exceed the lesser of the defendant’s annual gross income (or one half of the defendant’s net worth if the defendant’s annual gross income is determined to be a clearly inadequate penalty) or $5,000,000.”

Safety Technologies, L.C. v. Biotronix 2000, Inc. (2001) ksd “On February 5, 2001, this court held a hearing to set punitive damages, as directed by K.S.A. § 60-3702, and to hear argument on the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.”

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(b)(1) — 1 case

Ruiz v. Quiktrip Corp. (1993) ksd “Consequently, the court held a post-trial hearing on June 30, 1993, in accordance with Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3702 (Supp.1992), 1 to determine the amount of punitive damages to be awarded.”

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(b)(2) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(b)(3) — 3 cases

Hayes Sight & Sound, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc. (2006) kan “The other question before the trial court was whether to award punitive damages pursuant to K.S.A. 60-3702. MCMC also cites Patton as referencing two other cases for ratios of approximately 1-to-l and less.”

Linda R. Burt v. Kristy Ann Maurer (2000) bap8

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(b)(4) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(b)(5) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(b)(6) — 3 cases

Mynatt v. Collis (2002) kan “Mynatt and Mynatt Truck maintain that the district court properly considered the list of seven factors in K.”

Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2009) ksd

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(b)(7) — 2 cases

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(b)(l) — 1 case

Mynatt v. Collis (2002) kan “Mynatt and Mynatt Truck maintain that the district court properly considered the list of seven factors in K.”

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(c) — 38 cases

Lindsey v. Miami County National Bank (1999) kan “The next argument that Lindsey makes is that an employer is automatically liable for punitive damages under K.S.A. 60-3702 for the reckless actions of a management level employee.”

Whittenburg v. L.J. Holding Co. (1993) ksd

PS Ex Rel. Nelson v. the Farm, Inc. (2009) ksd

Messer v. Amway Corp. (2002) ksd

Stewart v. Mitchell Transport (2002) ksd

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(d) — 5 cases

H. Wayne Palmer & Associates v. Heldor Industries, Inc. (1993) ksd “The court notes that it deems the Kansas punitíve damages scheme to be substantive in nature *778 and, thus, it follows that K.S.A. § 60-3702 applies in diversity cases in Kansas.”

Alain Ellis Living Trust v. Harvey D. Ellis Living Trust (2018) kan “58a-1002, the punitive damages provisions in K.S.A. 60-3702 and 60-3703, and the Kansas survival statute, K.”

Commerce Bank, N.A. v. Chrysler Realty Corp. (1999) ksd

Brent v. Walmart Inc. (2022) ksd

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(d)(1) — 6 cases

Smith v. Printup (1993) kan “K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701(i). Language identical to the language plaintiffs challenge, however, kis included in K.”

Alain Ellis Living Trust v. Harvey D. Ellis Living Trust (2018) kan “58a-1002, the punitive damages provisions in K.S.A. 60-3702 and 60-3703, and the Kansas survival statute, K.”

Brent v. Walmart Inc. (2022) ksd

Yaple v. Jakel Trucking LLC (2022) ksd

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(d)(2) — 2 cases

Alain Ellis Living Trust v. Harvey D. Ellis Living Trust (2018) kan “58a-1002, the punitive damages provisions in K.S.A. 60-3702 and 60-3703, and the Kansas survival statute, K.”

Alain Ellis Living Trust v. Harvey D. Ellis Living Trust (2016) kanctapp

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(d)(l) — 5 cases

Werdann v. Mel Hambelton Ford, Inc. (2003) kanctapp

Bank of America, N.A. v. Narula (2011) kanctapp

Peoples State Bank & Trust Co. v. Krug (In Re Krug) (1995) ksb

Alain Ellis Living Trust v. Harvey D. Ellis Living Trust (2016) kanctapp

Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2009) ksd

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(e) — 14 cases

Paradigm Alliance, Inc. v. Celeritas Technologies, LLC (2010) ksd

Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2002) ksd

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(e)(1) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(e)(2) — 2 cases

PS Ex Rel. Nelson v. the Farm, Inc. (2009) ksd

J. Greg Horinek v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. (2026) ksd

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(e)(l) — 1 case

Wardrip v. Hart (1996) ksd

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(f) — 2 cases

Mynatt v. Collis (2002) kan “Mynatt and Mynatt Truck maintain that the district court properly considered the list of seven factors in K.”

— K.S.A. § 60-3702(h) — 1 case

Smith v. Printup (1993) kan “K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3701(i). Language identical to the language plaintiffs challenge, however, kis included in K.”

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.