8-2011.
Removal of traffic hazards on private property.
(a) It shall be the duty of the owner of real property to remove from such property any tree, plant, shrub or other obstruction, or part thereof, which, by obstructing the view of any driver, constitutes a traffic hazard.
(b) When the secretary of transportation or any local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that such a traffic hazard exists, the secretary or such local authority shall notify the owner and order that the hazard be removed within ten (10) days.
(c) The failure of the owner to remove such traffic hazard within ten (10) days shall constitute an offense punishable by a penalty of ten dollars ($10) and every day said owner shall fail to remove it shall be a separate and distinct offense.
History:
L. 1974, ch. 33, § 8-2011; L. 1975, ch. 427, § 59; August 15.
Notes of Decisions
Manley v. Hallbauer, 423 P.3d 480 (Kan. 2018).
· cites it 3× “And the statute imposes a penalty only if a landowner fails to respond to one of those authorities' notice. K.S.A. 8-2011(c). Had the Legislature wished to effect a different public policy than that articulated by this court and impose additional civil tort liability on the…”
Manley v. Hallbauer, 387 P.3d 185 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “2d at 794 (plaintiff relied on K.S.A. 8-2011[a] to create duty and court found no duty); Thiessen v.”
Sisk Ex Rel. Sisk v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger, 647 F. Supp. 861 (D. Kan. 1986).
“” Also, defendant’s motion is granted as to the claim for failure to remove road obstructions as the property in ques *863 tion is owned by the railroad; therefore, pursuant to K.S.A. 8-2011 the city has no duty to remove obstructions or inspect for obstructions on property…”
McCleary v. Boss, 955 P.2d 127 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
“Plaintiff’s claim against the Chastains was based on K.S.A. 8-2011(a), which provides it is the duty of owners of realty to remove trees, shrubs, etc.”
— K.S.A. § 8-2011(a) — 2 cases
Manley v. Hallbauer, 423 P.3d 480 (Kan. 2018).
“And the statute imposes a penalty only if a landowner fails to respond to one of those authorities' notice. K.S.A. 8-2011(c). Had the Legislature wished to effect a different public policy than that articulated by this court and impose additional civil tort liability on the…”
McCleary v. Boss, 955 P.2d 127 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
“Plaintiff’s claim against the Chastains was based on K.S.A. 8-2011(a), which provides it is the duty of owners of realty to remove trees, shrubs, etc.”
— K.S.A. § 8-2011(b) — 1 case
Manley v. Hallbauer, 423 P.3d 480 (Kan. 2018).
“And the statute imposes a penalty only if a landowner fails to respond to one of those authorities' notice. K.S.A. 8-2011(c). Had the Legislature wished to effect a different public policy than that articulated by this court and impose additional civil tort liability on the…”
— K.S.A. § 8-2011(c) — 1 case
Manley v. Hallbauer, 423 P.3d 480 (Kan. 2018).
“And the statute imposes a penalty only if a landowner fails to respond to one of those authorities' notice. K.S.A. 8-2011(c). Had the Legislature wished to effect a different public policy than that articulated by this court and impose additional civil tort liability on the…”
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.