David Prager

The case was a declaratory judgment action by medical malpractice victims challenging 1986 Kansas House Bill 2661, which capped total damages in malpractice actions at $1,000,000, limited noneconomic damages to $250,000, and required future economic losses to be paid via annuities owned by the Health Care Stabilization Fund. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the cap and annuity provisions violated Sections 5, 18, and 1 of the Kansas Bill of Rights. The court reasoned that the limits infringed on the right to jury trial by restricting the jury's fact-finding role on damages, denied plaintiffs a full remedy for injuries, and lacked a rational basis under equal protection principles given the nature of the restrictions imposed.

torts & liabilitycivil rightshealthcare

This case involved a 67-year-old woman who fell and was injured in an unlit stairwell at a University of Kansas dormitory while visiting her granddaughter, a resident student. The district court granted summary judgment to the university defendants, ruling that the plaintiff was a licensee owed only a duty to avoid wanton or reckless conduct, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the university-student rental agreement created a lessor-lessee relationship that imposed a duty of reasonable care to maintain common areas like the stairwell in safe condition under the common area exception to premises liability rules. The court reasoned that this duty extends to visitors using the premises in the intended manner when the owner retains control over shared spaces, and remanded for consideration of comparative fault issues.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a lawsuit by landowner L. Frank Dougan and his farm tenants against the Rossville Drainage District for crop damage and flooding on their property outside the district, allegedly caused by the district's construction and operation of dikes, embankments, and a drainage ditch that diverted water into a natural watercourse beyond its capacity. The district moved to dismiss, asserting immunity under the discretionary function exception of the Kansas Tort Claims Act (K.S.A. 75-6104(d)). The district court denied the motion, and on interlocutory appeal the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the exception does not apply because a governmental entity has no discretion to violate legal duties owed to adjacent landowners by altering natural water flows in ways that cause flooding damage. The court reasoned that recognizing such immunity would nullify the purpose of the Tort Claims Act and relied on prior precedent rejecting claims of discretionary authority to harm outside property owners without compensation or authorization. The case was remanded for trial on the factual issues of causation and damages.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved the acquittal of defendant Lloyd D. Clothier on a charge of involuntary manslaughter after he fired warning shots from a revolver that killed 15-year-old Seanan Picard, who had broken into Clothier's parked car at night. The State appealed on a question reserved, challenging jury instructions that permitted the use of force in defense of a dwelling or other property without requiring imminent danger to human life. The court held that the instructions accurately reflected K.S.A. 21-3212 and 21-3213 and that the trial court did not err in giving them. The core reasoning was that the Kansas legislature had intentionally omitted common-law limitations on deadly force for property defense, leaving reasonableness for the jury to decide, and that federal Fourth Amendment precedent on police shootings does not govern private criminal defenses.

criminal lawproperty

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by Christina Rood against Kansas City Power & Light Company after she was struck by a 35-pound metal spool that fell from a moving company truck trailer while she walked on an adjacent sidewalk. A jury awarded Rood $2,000 in damages, but she appealed the trial court's exclusion of certain medical bills, including one from Dr. Alvarez for treatments related to her injuries, on grounds that no proper foundation had been laid for their reasonableness or necessity. The court addressed whether the bills were admissible under Kansas law requiring medical expenses to be necessary and reasonable, with such questions typically reserved for the jury, and considered the sufficiency of testimony from other physicians linking the treatments to the accident. It also examined the propriety of using additur to increase an allegedly inadequate verdict when evidence had been excluded. The court ultimately applied principles allowing correction of judgments based on excluded evidence and permitted additur in this context.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by Bertha Draskowich against the City of Kansas City and its Board of Public Utilities for damage to her car from an accident caused by ice on a city street formed after a water main break. The plaintiff claimed negligence in failing to warn westbound drivers of the icy conditions, while the city filed a counterclaim for damage to a light pole hit by her vehicle. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the ice resulted from the city's affirmative acts during water line repairs rather than natural weather conditions, so the city was not immune under the Kansas Tort Claims Act snow-and-ice exception. The court further held that the lack of warnings in the westbound lanes, combined with the city's delay in sending a sand truck despite multiple requests and prior knowledge of the ice, supported the finding that the city's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

torts & liability