K.S.A. » Chapter 66
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 66-234 (2026)

Liability for negligence

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

66-234. Liability for negligence. Railroads in this state shall be liable for all damages done to person or property, when done in consequence of any neglect on the part of the railroad companies.

History: L. 1870, ch. 93, § 1; March 24; R.S. 1923, 66-234.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1969–1998 · leading case: Anderson v. Union Pac. R.R., 790 P.2d 438 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Anderson v. Union Pac. R.R., 790 P.2d 438 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 7× “Anderson defended that the provision was unenforceable and moved for summary judgment on the stipulated facts.”
Saliba v. Union Pac. R.R., 955 P.2d 1189 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff appeals, claiming (1) in granting summary judgment the judge erred by concluding as a matter of law that the railroad crossing was not unusually dangerous and that, therefore, the railroad owed no duty to plaintiff, and (2) K.S.A. 66-234 allows a negligence claim…”
Terry Neustrom v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., Defendant-Third-Party v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., Third-Party, 156 F.3d 1057 (3d Cir. 1998). “The main thrust of Asplundh’s argument is that allowing a common carrier to enjoy indemnification by third parties for its own negligence is tantamount to giving the carrier a license to kill or maim, and that because of this the Kansas legislature has enacted a statute…”
Lemon v. Busey, 461 P.2d 145 (Kan. 1969). “In the Kinney case a special statute imposing liability upon railroads (K.S.A. 66-234) controlled the decision. This statute provides that railroads in this state shall be liable for all damages done to person or property, when done in consequence of any negligence on the part…”
Neustrom v. Union Pac., No. 96-3266 (10th Cir. Sept. 21, 1998). “Asplundh directs our attention to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 66-234 , which reads: 2 Asplundh argues that the “clear and unequivocal term” requirement may have different meanings in different jurisdictions.”
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.