Source or prior law:

L. 1903, ch. 122, § 7; L. 1907, ch. 114, § 6; L. 1919, ch. 143, § 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Place misdescribed; located by city and obstruction removed; action maintainable. Cook v. Topeka, 75 Kan. 534, 90 P. 244.

2. Statute mandatory; no action maintainable unless statement filed. Cook v. Topeka, 75 Kan. 534, 536, 90 P. 244.

3. Statement handed to clerk at residence on last day sufficient. King v. City of Parsons, 95 Kan. 654, 149 P. 699.

4. Statement handed to clerk within time; marked filed later; sufficient. King v. City of Parsons, 95 Kan. 654, 149 P. 699.

5. Notice within four months after death from injuries held sufficient. Nesbit v. City of Topeka, 87 Kan. 394, 395, 124 P. 166.

6. Failure to give notice; action by widow for wrongful death. Nesbit v. City of Topeka, 87 Kan. 394, 395, 124 P. 166.

7. Effect of failure to allege and prove compliance herewith considered. Rogers v. City of Coffeyville, 95 Kan. 171, 172, 147 P. 816.

8. Plaintiff limited to injuries sustained during period of four months. Beard v. Kansas City, 96 Kan. 102, 104, 150 P. 540.

9. Evidence confined to injuries within four months preceding written statement. Beard v. Kansas City, 96 Kan. 102, 104, 150 P. 540.

10. Effect of failure to allege compliance with statute considered. White v. City of Bonner Springs, 99 Kan. 148, 150, 160 P. 1024.

11. Section not applicable to claim for work done under illegal contract. Ritchie v. City of Wichita, 99 Kan. 663, 670, 163 P. 176.

12. Paving contractor enjoined; claim for work performed not barred hereunder. Ritchie v. City of Wichita, 99 Kan. 663, 670, 163 P. 176.

13. Written claim must be sufficiently accurate not to mislead city. McHenry v. Kansas City, 101 Kan. 180, 182, 165 P. 664.

14. Discrepancy in date held material; demurrer to petition sustained. McHenry v. Kansas City, 101 Kan. 180, 182, 183, 165 P. 664.

15. Misdescription of place where injuries sustained held immaterial. Holmes v. Kansas City, 101 Kan. 785, 786, 168 P. 1110.

16. Notice sufficient to enable city to locate place; substantial compliance. Holmes v. Kansas City, 101 Kan. 785, 786, 168 P. 1110.

17. Claim for obstructing ingress and egress barred unless statement filed. Campbell v. City of Wichita, 101 Kan. 817, 820, 168 P. 833.

18. Application of statute to injury to property owner considered. Campbell v. City of Wichita, 101 Kan. 817, 820, 168 P. 833.

19. Act applies to minors; cannot be waived by city official. Dechant v. City of Hays, 112 Kan. 729, 212 P. 682.

20. Written statement insufficient to support action for mob violence. Mowery v. Kansas City, 115 Kan. 61, 222 P. 126.

21. Surplusage in notice does not render it bad. Burroughs v. City of Lawrence, 116 Kan. 573, 227 P. 328.

22. Notice charging place of injury as "within city limits" too indefinite. Haggard v. Arkansas City, 116 Kan. 681, 229 P. 70.

23. Statute operates prospectively. Bailey v. Baldwin City, 119 Kan. 605, 240 P. 852.

24. Statute applicable to workman injured while cutting tree. Davis v. City of El Dorado, 126 Kan. 153, 267 P. 7.

25. City must be given notice of injury from sidewalks. Spear v. City of Sterling, 126 Kan. 314, 315, 267 P. 979.

26. Liability for injury due to ice and snow accumulations; notice of condition. Speakman v. Dodge City, 137 Kan. 823, 22 P.2d 485.

27. Cited in holding notice is condition precedent under K.S.A. 68-419. Bohrer v. State Highway Comm., 137 Kan. 925, 927, 22 P.2d 470.

28. Injury sustained March 7; statement filed June 8 held one day late. Ray v. City of Wichita, 138 Kan. 686, 687, 27 P.2d 288.

29. Failure to prove claim presented held waived by city. Turner v. City of Wichita, 139 Kan. 775, 777, 779, 33 P.2d 335.

30. Finding showing claim filed too late held to bar recovery. Cole v. Kansas City, 141 Kan. 633, 635, 637, 42 P.2d 940.

31. Damages for injury from maintenance of nuisance; statutory claim; amount of recovery. Jeakins v. City of El Dorado, 143 Kan. 206, 207, 211, 53 P.2d 798.

32. Applies to: Minor's personal injury claim; claim arising out of proprietary or governmental functions. Thomas v. City of Coffeyville, 145 Kan. 588, 589, 590, 66 P.2d 600.

33. Injury from defective sidewalk; notice considered and held sufficient. Jones v. Kansas City, 145 Kan. 591, 592, 66 P.2d 579.

34. Compared; act avoiding unrecorded instruments conveying mineral rights (K.S.A. 79-420) held valid. Hushaw v. Kansas Farmers' Union Royalty Co., 149 Kan. 64, 72, 86 P.2d 559.

35. Notice of injury and petition filed for damages not at variance. Bellmeyer v. City of Coffeyville, 154 Kan. 346, 348, 118 P.2d 619.

36. Section applies to action for trespass on real property. Root v. City of Topeka, 157 Kan. 260, 261, 262, 139 P.2d 393.

37. Action against city utility board; city necessary party; compliance herewith essential. Hubert v. Board of Public Utilities, 162 Kan. 205, 206, 174 P.2d 1017.

38. Pedestrian injured on defective street; degree of care required; no recovery. Smith v. City of Emporia, 169 Kan. 359, 360, 219 P.2d 451.

39. Action to abate nuisance and for damages; evidence admissible; amount of recovery. Steifer v. City of Kansas City, 175 Kan. 794, 796, 799, 267 P.2d 474.

40. Petition alleging statement was presented to governing body held insufficient. Hibbs v. City of Wichita, 176 Kan. 529, 531, 532, 535, 536, 271 P.2d 797.

41. Filing statement with city clerk is condition precedent to action. Hibbs v. City of Wichita, 176 Kan. 529, 532, 535, 536, 271 P.2d 797.

42. Statute includes all claims and is mandatory; statement omitting place of injury insufficient. Wildin v. City of Hutchinson, 177 Kan. 671, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 282 P.2d 377.

43. Written statement omitting time of injury insufficient; action not maintainable. Howell v. City of Hutchinson, 177 Kan. 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 282 P.2d 373.

44. Compliance with section held condition precedent to maintenance of action. Wommack v. Lesh, 180 Kan. 548, 550, 552, 305 P.2d 854.

45. Written statement is condition precedent to maintenance of action. McGinnis v. City of Wichita, 180 Kan. 608, 609, 610, 611, 306 P.2d 127.

46. Section complied with; damage action; gas explosion. Avery v. City of Lyons, 181 Kan. 670, 672, 314 P.2d 307.

47. Attorney's representation of city in actions on claims he prepared held improper. Wilson v. Wahl, 182 Kan. 532, 536, 322 P.2d 804.

48. Inapplicable to employee's claim for overtime compensation based on quantum meruit. Harris v. City of Topeka, 183 Kan. 359, 360, 327 P.2d 1088.

49. Petition cannot vary statements made in claim; time of injury sufficiently stated. Watkins v. City of El Dorado, 183 Kan. 363, 365, 366, 368, 369, 370, 327 P.2d 877.

50. Section prescribes notice requirements; does not limit damages. Avery v. City of Lyons, 183 Kan. 611, 612, 620, 331 P.2d 906.

51. Wife injured; claim for lost services sufficient; construed, applied, purpose. Cornett v. City of Neodesha, 187 Kan. 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 353 P.2d 975.

52. Section neither classifies damages nor requires that injury be temporary or permanent; continuing nuisance created by operation of sewage plant; claim filed within three months of the injury complained of held filed in time; measure of damages, petition held to state action for diminution in the value of real estate; petition cannot vary statements made in claim. Adams v. City of Arkansas City, 188 Kan. 391, 392, 393, 396, 397, 398, 403, 405, 406, 362 P.2d 829.

53. Plaintiff failed to allege and prove injury and damage occurred within prescribed time. Spacek v. City of Topeka, 189 Kan. 645, 648, 371 P.2d 165.

54. Mentioned in dissenting opinion in case holding Water Appropriation Act (K.S.A. 82a-701 et seq.) constitutional. Williams v. City of Wichita, 190 Kan. 317, 320, 359, 374 P.2d 578.

55. Timely filing of statement is essential element of section; not unconstitutional when applied to incompetent person; compliance herewith is condition precedent to bringing damage action against city. Workman v. City of Emporia, 200 Kan. 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 434 P.2d 846.

56. Section has no application to actions on contracts. Stauffer v. City of Topeka, 200 Kan. 287, 289, 436 P.2d 980.

57. Compliance herewith a condition precedent to claim against city for injuries to person or property; performance must be pleaded to show pleader "entitled to relief" pursuant to K.S.A. 60-208. James v. City of Wichita, 202 Kan. 222, 224, 447 P.2d 817.

58. Timely filing of statement condition precedent to action. Powell v. City of Haysville, 203 Kan. 543, 546, 549, 550, 455 P.2d 528.

59. Compliance is a condition precedent to a claim for relief; merely stating a claim has been made against the defendant is not sufficient. Frankhauser v. City of El Dorado, 203 Kan. 757, 758, 759, 760, 761, 457 P.2d 146.

60. Three-month filing period inapplicable to actions based on implied contract. Lux v. City of Topeka, 204 Kan. 179, 180, 182, 183, 460 P.2d 541.

61. Section establishes procedure for maintaining action against city, regardless of the basis for asserted liability, but it makes no pretense of creating a liability. Welch v. City of Kansas City, 204 Kan. 765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 771, 465 P.2d 951.

62. Action against city for damages resulting from overflow or surface waters occasioned by city is in nature of nuisance or trespass; filing of claim hereunder is condition precedent to bringing action, but cause of action doesn't accrue or originate thereby. Welch v. City of Kansas City, 204 Kan. 765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 771, 465 P.2d 951.

63. Petition may be amended to include omitted allegation of compliance with section; amendment relates back to toll statute. Welch v. City of Kansas City, 204 Kan. 765, 771, 465 P.2d 951.

64. Notice properly filed hereunder in case concerning damage to property by flow of surface water. Baldwin v. City of Overland Park, 205 Kan. 1, 3, 468 P.2d 168.

65. Cited; conditions precedent to recovery of judgment against a corporation considered. Kilpatrick Bros., Inc. v. Poynter, 205 Kan. 787, 793, 473 P.2d 33.

66. Where more than one defendant, additional jury challenges optional with trial court. Lehar v. Rogers, 208 Kan. 831, 837, 494 P.2d 1124.

67. Lower court's decision that plaintiff did not comply with provisions of section upheld. Fox v. City of Overland Park, 210 Kan. 16, 499 P.2d 524.

68. Claim filed hereunder for alleged unlawful razing of structure; K.S.A. 12-1750 et seq. complied with; jury verdict for city upheld. Tingle v. City of Wichita, 211 Kan. 119, 122, 505 P.2d 717.

69. Notice properly given hereunder in negligence action. Hubbard v. Havlik, 213 Kan. 594, 607, 518 P.2d 352.

70. Notice requirements applicable to actions against city only; inapplicable to actions against police officer. Bradford v. Mahan, 219 Kan. 450, 452, 453, 457, 458, 548 P.2d 1223.

71. Written statements requirements inapplicable to claim against city for expungement or correction of record. Bradford v. Mahan, 219 Kan. 450, 452, 453, 457, 458, 548 P.2d 1223.

72. Mentioned; under facts action against city on common law theories dismissed; governmental immunity. Bribiesca v. City of Wichita, 221 Kan. 571, 572, 561 P.2d 816.

73. Allegations of failure to comply with section rejected; liability of municipalities for acts of employees determined; abolition of certain governmental immunity. Gorrell v. City of Parsons, 223 Kan. 645, 646, 576 P.2d 616.

74. Notice of claim statute does not apply to federal securities law claim based on Section 12(2) of the 1933 Act. Woods v. Homes & Structures of Pittsburg, Kansas, 489 F. Supp. 1270, 1295.

75. Action by employee-at-will for retaliatory discharge sounds in tort not in contract. Murphy v. City of Topeka, 6 Kan. App. 2d 488, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 630 P.2d 186 (1981).

76. Notice to sue by plaintiff did not serve as notice for later claim of condemnation. Martel v. City of Newton, Kan., 72 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1264 (1999).

77. Community college defendant was not an arm of the state precluding sovereign immunity. Bland v. Kansas City, Kansas Community College, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1287 (2003).

78. Motorist's workers compensation carrier was not required to file revised notice of claim to the city based on substantial increase in damages alleged in amended petition. Continental Western Ins. Co. v. Shultz, 297 Kan. 769, 304 P.3d 1239 (2013).

79. District court dismissed plaintiff's state law tort claims against county without prejudice where plaintiff had not fulfilled the notice requirement. Wanjiku v. Johnson Cnty., 173 F. Supp. 3d 1217, 1236 (D. Kan. 2016).