Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Marquise Johnson was injured when his friend, André Lewis, accidentally shot him while attempting to disassemble a handgun in a car. Lewis believed the gun could not fire without the magazine, but it discharged, hitting Johnson in the legs. Johnson sued the gun's manufacturer, importer, and seller, alleging the gun was defective for lacking certain safety features.The Lyon District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, citing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which provides immunity to firearm manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits when their products are misused criminally. The court found that Lewis' act of pulling the trigger was volitional and constituted a criminal offense under Kansas law, specifically the strict-liability crime of discharging a firearm on a public road.The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, interpreting the PLCAA to require an intentional discharge for immunity to apply. The majority held that because Lewis did not intend to fire the gun, the PLCAA did not bar Johnson's lawsuit. A dissenting judge argued that the PLCAA should apply because Lewis' act of pulling the trigger was volitional.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the PLCAA bars product-liability actions if a volitional act causes the gun to discharge and the shooting constitutes a criminal offense. The court found that Lewis' deliberate trigger pull was a volitional act and that discharging a firearm on a public road is a strict-liability crime under Kansas law. Therefore, the PLCAA provided immunity to the defendants, and the district court's summary judgment was affirmed. The case was remanded to the district court. View "Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World " on Justia Law

In a defamation case involving a cosmetic surgeon and a former patient who posted negative and false reviews on Yelp, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the district court's judgment that the surgeon failed to show any actual damage to his reputation. The court held that defamation requires proof of harm to reputation, and mere speculation about reputational harm is not sufficient. Reputational harm may be indicated by reasonable inferences such as declining revenue or decreased professional opportunities, but these inferences must be tied to a fact in the real world. The court clarified that defamation per se and presumed damages have been abolished in Kansas, and thus, a plaintiff must show injury to reputation to establish a valid claim for defamation. The court found that the surgeon failed to prove reputational harm caused by the defamatory statements, and rejected the argument that the jury's finding of malice relieved him from proof of reputational harm. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to set aside the defamation judgment. View "Marcus v. Swanson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Dameon Baumgarner's wrongful conviction claim seeking compensation under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-5004, holding that Baumgarner was "imprisoned" for purposes of the wrongful conviction compensation statute because his sentence was controlled by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6603(g).Baumgarner was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm, and the district court sentenced him to a ten-month prison term, suspended. After Baumgarner was released from jail, the court of appeals reversed his conviction. Thereafter, Baumgarner brought this action alleging a wrongful conviction under section 60-5004, under which he was required to establish that he was "convicted of a felony crime and subsequently imprisoned." The district court dismissed the claim on the grounds that Baumgarner had not been "imprisoned" because he was not confined in a Kansas Department of Corrections facility. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Baumgarner was imprisoned for purposes of the wrongful conviction statute because his sentence was controlled by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6603(g), which contemplates sixty days imprisonment in a county jail as a condition of probation in felony cases. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Baumgarner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered two certified questions regarding the interplay between an arbitrated award against one set of tortfeasors and a litigated proceeding against another set of tortfeasors in this case concerning Kansas's one-action rule.Timothy Hunt, a farm employee, was killed when operating a grain vacuum to remove corn from a grain trailer. Plaintiff, Hunt's daughter, filed suit in Kansas federal district court against the manufacturer of the grain vacuum system. In the meantime, Hunt's children, including Plaintiff, entered into an arbitration agreement with the farm. An arbitrator entered an award in favor of the claimants. The circuit court entered final judgment confirming the arbitration award. The defendants in the federal court action subsequently moved for summary judgment, arguing that the suit was barred by the one-action rule. The federal court then certified questions to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered (1) an arbitration action does not qualify as a judicial determination of comparative fault where no other potential tortfeasors were involved in the arbitration; and (2) the confirmation of an arbitration award by a state court judgment does not qualify as a judicial determination of comparative fault so as to invite application of the Kansas one-action rule. View "Hodges v. Walinga USA Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's wrongful conviction action brought under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-5004 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court incorrectly dismissed his suit because, among other things, factual questions remained over the application of Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-515(a) and the doctrine of equitable tolling. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to show that the district court erred by declining to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to his claim; and (2) the district court correctly dismissed Appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Bell" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendants' motions for dismissal and summary judgment, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff brought this action alleging that Father M.J., a priest, and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City alleging various torts based on sexual abuse from M.J. when Plaintiff was a child. Defendants filed motions for dismissal and summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff's claims were time barred. The district court denied the motions, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that disputed questions of material fact remained. View "Doe v. M.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a panel of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the Kansas Workers Compensation Fund on the Fund's collateral action against Trademark, Inc., holding that there was no error.After Juan Medina received a workplace injury he sought compensation from his direct employer under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 44-501 et seq. Because the employer did not carry workers compensation insurance, Medina impleaded the Fund to obtain benefits. Thereafter, an ALJ awarded compensation to Medina, and the Fund paid Medina benefits. The Fund then filed this action under Kan. Stat. Ann. 44-532a against Trademark, the general contractor for whom Medina's employer was acting as a subcontractor at the time of the injury. The district court granted summary judgment to the Fund and denied attorney fees. The court of appeals panel affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the lower courts correctly interpreted section 44-532a as allowing the Fund to pursue an action against Trademark; but (2) the Fund was not entitled to attorney fees. View "Schmidt v. Trademark, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of two police officers in this complaint seeking money damages under various state law tort theories, holding that the officers were entitled to discretionary function immunity.This case stemmed from a police officer's investigation of suspicious activity in a residential area and the officer's detainment of Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit against two of the officers who arrived at the scene before Plaintiff was eventually released, alleging state law tort theories arising from this encounter. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the officers' conduct was not privileged because they lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Plaintiff as part of their investigation; but (2) the officers were entitled to discretionary function immunity under the Kansas Tort Claims Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-6101 et seq. View "Schreiner v. Hodge" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court to grant summary judgment on the University of Kansas Hospital Authority's (KUHA) claims against the City of Ottawa seeking to recover the cost of medical treatment provided to an indigent patient who was injured in a car crash, holding that the City was not obligated to pay the patient's medical expenses.In seeking to recover the cost of the patient's medical treatment in this case, KUHA relied on Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4612(a), which requires a city or county to pay a health care provider for health care services rendered to an indigent person in the custody of a city or the city's law enforcement agency. The district court granted summary judgment against the City of Ottawa, ruling that the Ottawa Police Department (OPD) ultimately had custody of the patient, and not the City. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that OPD did not have custody of the patient under section 22-4612(a), and therefore, the City was not liable for the patient's unpaid medical expenses. View "University of Kansas Hospital Authority v. Board of Franklin County Commissioners" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiffs' lawsuit against their doctor based on Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1906(a), holding that section 60-1906(a) does not violate the right to trial by jury guaranteed by section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights or the right to a remedy guaranteed by section 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.Plaintiffs sued their obstetrician, asserting that Defendant breached the applicable duty of care by failing to detect fetal abnormalities in an ultrasound. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the damages claim for future care made this a wrongful death lawsuit barred by section 60-1906(a). The district court granted judgment to Defendant based on the statute, determining that the statute was unconstitutional. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly applied section 60-1906(a) to conclude that Defendant was entitled to judgment on the pleadings. View "Tillman v. Goodpasture" on Justia Law