Source or prior law:

(a). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 87; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 92; R.S. 1923, 60-704.

(b). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 94, 102; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 97, 104; R.S. 1923, 60-710, 60-717.

(d). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 108, 128; L. 1886, ch. 61, § 1; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 110, 129; R.S. 1923, 60-729, 60-748.

(e). (1). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 116; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 118; R.S. 1923, 60-737.

(e). (2). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 89, 94; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 93, 97; L. 1911, ch. 230, § 1; R.S. 1923, 60-705 (4 th clause), 60-710 (3 rd clause).

(f). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 115; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 117; R.S. 1923, 60-736.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Amended and supplemental pleadings, see 60-215.

Class actions, see 60-223.

Defenses and objections, see 60-212.

Joinder of claims and remedies, see 60-218.

Pleadings allowed, forms of motions, see 60-207.

Form of pleadings, see 60-210.

Joinder of persons needed for just adjudication, see 60-219.

Affirmative defense of assumption of risk of domestic animal activity, see 60-4001 et seq.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Subsection (a) commented upon prior to legislative enactment, George Templar, 31 J.B.A.K. 166 (1962).

Pleadings discussed, Marlin M. Volz, 11 K.L.R. 203, 208 (1962).

Paragraph (c); 1963-65 survey of law of contracts, Fred N. Six, 14 K.L.R. 209, 219 (1965).

Paragraphs (a) and (f); attached exhibit as pleading, Arnold Grundeman, 8 W.L.J. 102, 103, 108 (1968).

Paragraph (c); Illinois case overturning a common law rationale for contributory negligence, similar to Kansas, for a form of comparative negligence, Robert A. Vohs, 8 W.L.J. 135, 141, 142 (1968).

"Cause of Action Under K.S.A. 60-308 and K.S.A. 60-603 (3)," Robert J. Fowks, 38 J.B.A.K. 291, 292, 294 (1969).

Paragraph (a) cited in note concerning insurer's duty to defend insured in personal injury action under liability policy that excludes from coverage injuries caused by the intentional conduct of insured, 20 K.L.R. 351, 358 (1971).

Cited in comment on no-fault insurance, Tom Haney, 11 W.L.J. 276, 284 (1972).

Subsection (a); consumer protection in Tenth Judicial District, William P. Coates, Jr., 44 J.B.A.K. 67, 104 (1975).

"Medical Malpractice 1976: An Update on Change," Lee J. Dunn, Jr., 45 J.B.A.K. 173, 178 (1976).

"Practicing Law in a Unified Kansas Court System," Linda Diane Henry Elrod, 16 W.L.J. 260, 262 (1977).

"Recent Legislation: The Kansas Approach to Medical Malpractice," Nancy Neal Scherer and Robert P. Scherer, 16 W.L.J. 395, 415 (1977).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Civil Procedure," Jerry G. Elliott, 27 K.L.R. 185, 195 (1979).

"Procedural Pitfalls in Defamation Litigation," Leon B. Graves, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 1, 6, 7 (1979).

"Comparative Fault: Avoiding the Phantom Trap," Dan Wulz, 6 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 8 (1983).

"Recent Development in Kansas Civil Procedure," E. Elinor P. Schroeder, 32 K.L.R. 515, 529 (1984).

"Evidence: Can What I Said Be Held Against Me?: Admitting Settlement Agreements and Prior Pleadings in Multiple-Defendant Comparative Negligence Actions[Lytle v. Stearns, 830 P.2d 1197 (Kan. 1992)]," Patrick Hughes, 32 W.L.J. 260, 271 (1993).

"Assumption Of Risk: Although A Harsh And Draconian Doctrine, Is Nonetheless, Alive And Well." Robert G. Herndon, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVI, No. 5, 4 (1993).

"Removal to Federal Court: The Practitioner's Tightrope," Charles W. Hyland, 63 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 22, 27 (1994).

"Challenging and Defending Agency Actions in Kansas," Steve Leben, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 22, 35, 36 (1995).

"Caveat plaintiff: Congress has defederalized private securities litigation," Steven A. Ramirez, 67 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 16 (1998).

"Dissolution of Non-Marital Relationships," Charles F. Harris, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXII, No. 2, 18 (1998).

"The Pot Calls the Kettle Black: A Rebuttal to 'Cutting the Hedge: Reforming Comparative Fault in Medical Malpractice'," Jerry D. Hawkins, K.D.J. Spring (2007).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-704, 60-705, 60-710, 60-717, 60-729, 60-736, 60-737, 60-748 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.

1. Allegations of pleading shall be liberally construed to effect substantial justice. King v. Robbins, 193 Kan. 70, 75, 392 P.2d 154; Wagoner v. Mail Delivery Service, Inc., 193 Kan. 470, 471, 394 P.2d 119.

2. Subsection (f) applied; motion to alter or amend judgment. Sharp v. Sharp, 196 Kan. 38, 42, 409 P.2d 1019.

3. Section provides same thing as former Kansas statute. National Bank of America at Salina v. Calhoun, 253 F. Supp. 346, 347, 350.

4. An attached exhibit is no substitute for a necessary allegation. Hoover Equipment Co. v. Smith, 198 Kan. 127, 131, 422 P.2d 914.

5. Claim of "sudden emergency" not an avoidance or affirmative defense. Herrington v. Pechin, 198 Kan. 431, 433, 424 P.2d 624.

6. Trial court's jurisdiction limited to issues raised by pleadings or defined at pretrial conference. Bowen, Administrator v. Lewis, 198 Kan. 605, 612, 426 P.2d 238.

7. Statute of limitations is affirmative defense and must be pleaded and proved. Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Cornish, 370 F.2d 82, 83, 86.

8. Inconsistent alternative defense of adverse possession held proper. Beams v. Werth, 200 Kan. 532, 533, 548, 438 P.2d 957.

9. Mentioned in overruling trial court's dismissal of action for failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted. Thompson v. Phillips Pipe Line Co., 200 Kan. 669, 672, 438 P.2d 146.

10. In action brought under K.S.A. 12-105, party must plead performance of conditions thereof to be "entitled to relief." James v. City of Wichita, 202 Kan. 222, 224, 225, 447 P.2d 817.

11. Paragraphs (b) and (c) applied; summary judgment proceeding is not a trial by affidavits; trial required to determine facts. Lee v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 203 Kan. 72, 75, 452 P.2d 857.

12. Applied; application of proceeds of collateral to secured debts. State Bank of Downs v. Moss, 203 Kan. 447, 451, 454 P.2d 554.

13. No allegation of fraud made prior to or during trial; assertion of fraud on appeal untenable. Peoples State Bank v. Merry "A" Drilling, Inc., 204 Kan. 192, 199, 460 P.2d 521.

14. Petition in action by husband for medical expenses of wife stated claim for relief. Kelley v. Lee, 204 Kan. 317, 319, 461 P.2d 806.

15. Subsection (c) discussed; the defense of waiver is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded. Lehigh, Inc. v. Stevens, 205 Kan. 103, 109, 468 P.2d 177.

16. Allegations contained in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted are to be taken as denied or avoided. Tabor v. Lederer, 205 Kan. 746, 748, 472 P.2d 209.

17. Petition did not show existence of contract entitling plaintiff to relief; motion to dismiss upheld. Weil & Associates v. Urban Renewal Agency, 206 Kan. 405, 413, 479 P.2d 875.

18. Cited; "claim for relief" defined. Hutchinson Nat'l Bank and Trust Co. v. English, 209. K 127, 129, 495 P.2d 1011.

19. Both accord and satisfaction must be pleaded and established to be effective; judgment for plaintiff upheld. Thompson v. Meyers, 211 Kan. 26, 32, 505 P.2d 680.

20. Doctrine of laches is an affirmative defense; cannot be pleaded for first time on appeal. Brooker v. Brooker, 214 Kan. 89, 97, 519 P.2d 612.

21. Subsection (c) applied; failure to plead estoppel as an affirmative defense. Geis Irrigation Co. v. Satanta Feed Yards, Inc., 214 Kan. 373, 377, 521 P.2d 272.

22. Paragraph (a) applied; petition sufficiently stated cause of action K.S.A. 19-805. Monroe v. Darr, 214 Kan. 426, 430, 520 P.2d 1197.

23. Applied; fraud alleged in defendants' counter-claim considered a defense. Bessman v. Bessman, 214 Kan. 510, 514, 520 P.2d 1210.

24. Trial court's finding of estoppel incorrect since not especially pleaded; inapplicable; garnishment in aid of execution. McClintock v. McCall, 214 Kan. 764, 766, 522 P.2d 343.

25. Referred to; action involving construction of commercial transaction; implied warranty of fitness; disclaimer. Atlas Industries, Inc v. National Cash Register Co., 216 Kan. 213, 222, 531 P.2d 41.

26. Subsection (a) applied; pleading in original petition sufficient to raise issue on appeal from summary judgment. Voth v. Chrysler Motor Corporation, 218 Kan. 644, 646, 545 P.2d 371.

27. Subsection (c) mentioned; defense of res judicata must be raised by answer unless the same is clearly indicated by petition. Weaver v. Frazee, 219 Kan. 42, 52, 547 P.2d 1005.

28. Subsection (e)(2) mentioned; inconsistent cause of actions may be combined in single suit. Weaver v. Frazee, 219 Kan. 42, 50, 547 P.2d 1005.

29. Construed with K.S.A. 60-218, action based on tort barred by statute; new action based on contract allowed. Griffith v. Stout Remodeling, Inc., 219 Kan. 408, 412, 413, 548 P.2d 1238.

30. Action characterized as contract action sounded in tort; governmental immunity. Malone v. University of Kansas Medical Center, 220 Kan. 371, 373, 552 P.2d 885.

31. Failure to raise defense of statute of frauds as required by section; not considered on appeal. Timi v. Prescott State Bank, 220 Kan. 377, 386, 553 P.2d 315.

32. Applied; answer did not constitute specific denial of material allegations of habeas corpus petition; petition granted. Jolly v. Avery, 220 Kan. 692, 696, 556 P.2d 449.

33. Applied; default judgments not void because no finding of facts in rendering judgment. Automatic Feeder Co. v. Tobey, 221 Kan. 17, 21, 558 P.2d 101.

34. Applied; no requirement that pleadings state facts sufficient to constitute cause of action; action alleging defamation and invasion of privacy. Rinsley v. Frydman, 221 Kan. 297, 301, 559 P.2d 334.

35. Absent pretrial order, facts alleged in petition control scope of lawsuit. Febert v. Upland Mutual Ins. Co., 222 Kan. 197, 199, 563 P.2d 467.

36. Section cited; K.S.A. 60-206 inapplicable; private contract involved. Barnes v. Gideon, 1 Kan. App. 2d 517, 518, 571 P.2d 42.

37. Section applied; doctrine of estoppel does not prevent one from seeking inconsistent and alternative remedies. Fuqua v. Hanson, 222 Kan. 653, 657, 567 P.2d 862.

38. Failure to comply with section noted; tort action; 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.

39. Section cited; summary judgment granted without court specifically addressing one theory raised in pleadings; affirmed. Henderson v. Ripperger, 3 Kan. App. 2d 303, 594 P.2d 251.

40. A cause of action for malicious prosecution of a civil action may be alleged in general language in a petition, so long as the essential elements are set forth. Nelson v. Miller, 227 Kan. 271, 277, 607 P.2d 438.

41. Where both parties agree that matter was ripe for summary judgment, court did not abuse discretion in denying losing party permission to amend pleadings thereafter. United Kansas Bank & Trust Co. v. Rixner, 4 Kan. App. 2d 662, 664, 665, 610 P.2d 116.

42. Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 grants state court's jurisdiction with federal courts regarding secondary boycotts. Collier v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 101, 228 Kan. 52, 62, 612 P.2d 150.

43. Petition which alleges a lease and injury to premises caused by negligence of tenant's sublessee states cause of action against tenant. Marcellus v. K.O.V., Inc., 5 Kan. App. 2d 339, 341, 615 P.2d 170.

44. Discussed in opinion adopting a form of comparative implied indemnity between joint tortfeasors. Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 Kan. 439, 460, 618 P.2d 788.

45. Court adopted form of comparative indemnity between joint tortfeasors. Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 Kan. 439, 464, 618 P.2d 788.

46. Answer to counterclaim for interpleader set forth claim seeking relief and demand for judgment. Farmers State Bank & Trust Co. of Hays v. City of Yates Center, 229 Kan. 330, 343, 344, 624 P.2d 971.

47. Failure to raise affirmative defense at trial waives such defense on appeal. U.S.D. No. 490 v. Celotex Corp., 6 Kan. App. 2d 346, 354, 629 P.2d 196 (1981).

48. Petition for claim of relief; elements required. Speer v. City of Dodge City, 6 Kan. App. 2d 798, 801, 636 P.2d 178 (1981).

49. No error in allowing amended petition setting forth different claims which arose out of conduct alleged in original petition. Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 8 Kan. App. 2d 303, 307, 657 P.2d 582 (1983).

50. Supreme court rule No. 118(b) sets forth procedure to be used; rule does not preclude use of blackboards or charts if figures used are adduced from evidence. Ettus v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 233 Kan. 555, 564, 665 P.2d 730 (1983).

51. Subsection (c) cited where defendant in comparative negligence suit (K.S.A. 60-258a) required to prove by preponderance of evidence joined party's fault. McGraw v. Sanders Co. Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 233 Kan. 766, 772, 773, 667 P.2d 289 (1983).

52. Where petition states cause of action hereunder, amendments based on same theory permitted. Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 233 Kan. 1028, 1032, 667 P.2d 380 (1983).

53. Amendment to plead affirmative defenses proper where previous default judgment entered in small claims court. Banister v. Carnes, 9 Kan. App. 2d 133, 139, 675 P.2d 906 (1984).

54. Gard's comments cited in case pleading fraud. Price v. Grimes, 234 Kan. 898, 900, 677 P.2d 969 (1984).

55. Cited in holding assumption of risk defense still absolute bar to recovery by employee. Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 235 Kan. 278, 305, 306, 680 P.2d 877 (1984).

56. Emphasis on substance rather than form; eleven general principles established since adoption of code discussed. Oller v. Kincheloe's, Inc., 235 Kan. 440, 446, 681 P.2d 630 (1984).

57. Failure to use word "estoppel" in affirmative defense does not defeat plain language giving notice thereof. Turon State Bank v. Bozarth, 235 Kan. 786, 788, 684 P.2d 419 (1984).

58. Statute of limitations is affirmative defense that must be raised. O'Donnell v. Fletcher, 9 Kan. App. 2d 491, 494, 681 P.2d 1074 (1984).

59. Affirmative defenses of estoppel and res judicata are waived unless affirmatively pled. Oehme v. Oehme, 10 Kan. App. 2d 73, 77, 691 P.2d 1325 (1984).

60. While court improperly raised issue of statute of limitations, error harmless where suit barred for other reasons. Frontier Ditch Co. v. Chief Engineer of Div. of Water Resources, 237 Kan. 857, 864, 704 P.2d 12 (1985).

61. Pleadings to be given liberal construction; allowance of demand in probate to be liberally construed. In re Estate of Moe, 11 Kan. App. 2d 244, 249, 250, 719 P.2d 7 (1986).

62. Cited in opinion that failure to comply with S. Ct. rule 118(d) renders resulting default judgment voidable and not void. Universal Modular Structures, Inc. v. Forrest, 11 Kan. App. 2d 298, 301, 720 P.2d 1121 (1986).

63. Cited; lack of consideration for mortgage foreclosed following deficiency judgment under K.S.A. 16a-1-101 et seq. (UCCC) examined. Garden Nat'l Bank v. Cada, 11 Kan. App. 2d 562, 565, 729 P.2d 1252 (1986).

64. Cited; court's discretion in granting motion to dismiss malpractice claim where plaintiff shifted claim examined. Boydston v. Kansas Board of Regents, 242 Kan. 94, 99, 744 P.2d 806 (1987).

65. Threshold requirements of K.S.A. 40-3117 not affirmative defenses within purview of (c). Stang v. Caragianis, 243 Kan. 249, 252, 757 P.2d 279 (1988).

66. Cited; "one-action" rule in K.S.A. 60-258a examined where separate suits brought for medical malpractice following injuries from industrial accident. Mick v. Mani, 244 Kan. 81, 95, 766 P.2d 147 (1988).

67. Nolo contendere plea to underlying criminal charges as constituting waiver of statute of limitations defense (K.S.A. 21-3106) determined. Lowe v. State, 14 Kan. App. 2d 119, 120, 783 P.2d 1313 (1990).

68. K.S.A. 1-402 as providing adequate substitute remedy for common-law action of professional liability against accountant determined. Gillespie v. Seymour, 14 Kan. App. 2d 563, 573, 796 P.2d 1060 (1990).

69. Defendant's failure to deny payment on debt after sanction struck statute of limitations as affirmative defense constituted admission. Diversified Financial Planners, Inc. v. Maderak, 248 Kan. 946, 948, 811 P.2d 1236 (1991).

70. Notice pleading rules examined; no requirement to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Producers Equipment Sales, Inc. v. Thomason, 15 Kan. App. 2d 393, 397, 808 P.2d 881 (1991).

71. Statements of claims and defenses in pleadings not admissible as admissions. Lytle v. Stearns, 250 Kan. 783, 794, 830 P.2d 1197 (1992).

72. Common-law defense of assumption of risk examined; court found defense not altered by adoption of comparative fault. Tuley v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 252 Kan. 205, 210, 843 P.2d 248 (1992).

73. Res judicata no defense to void court orders; doing so would defeat ends of justice. In re Marriage of Cline, 17 Kan. App. 2d 230, 235, 840 P.2d 1198 (1992).

74. Statute of repose and statute of limitations must be raised as affirmative defenses. Baumann v. Excel Industries, Inc., 17 Kan. App. 2d 807, 810, 845 P.2d 65 (1993).

75. On question certified (K.S.A. 60-3201 et seq.), manufacturer's post-sale duty to warn of recall and retrofit defective products examined. Patton v. Hutchinson Wil-Rich Mfg. Co., 253 Kan. 741, 748, 861 P.2d 1299 (1993).

76. Where justification defense could have been affirmatively pled, trial court correct in refusing to instruct on the issue. Burrowwood Assocs., Inc. v. Safelite Glass Corp., 18 Kan. App. 2d 396, 401, 853 P.2d 1175 (1993).

77. Whether party's inconsistent positions violate doctrine of election of remedies examined. St. Francis Regional Med. Center v. Weiss, 254 Kan. 728, 749, 869 P.2d 606 (1994).

78. Whether collateral estoppel doctrine is an affirmative defense which must be timely raised in responsive pleading examined. In re Marriage of Vargas, 20 Kan. App. 2d 480, 487, 891 P.2d 462 (1994).

79. Whether defendant's failure to properly plead an affirmative defense based on statute of limitations barred defense examined. King v. Pimentel, 20 Kan. App. 2d 579, 583, 585, 890 P.2d 1217 (1995).

80. General denial of agency relationship in answer constituted denial for directed verdict purposes. Felix v. U.S.D. No. 202, 22 Kan. App. 2d 849, 850, 923 P.2d 1056 (1996).

81. Transferee of right to refund of property taxes paid after debtor discharged in bankruptcy could collect from debtor. Ekan Properties v. Wilhm, 262 Kan. 495, 504, 939 P.2d 918 (1997).

82. Class action members may aggregate punitive damages in determining controversy amount if members have common, undivided right to punitive damages. Amundson & Assoc. Art v. Nat. Council on Comp. Ins., 977 F. Supp. 1116, 1121 (1997).

83. Insurance contract exclusion of coverage of party injured while using vehicle without permission of owner upheld. Parker v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 25 Kan. App. 2d 329, 331, 962 P.2d 1114 (1998).

84. Failure to raise lack of consideration in a contract defense at trial precludes review on appeal. Johnson v. Johnson, 26 Kan. App. 2d 321, 328, 988 P.2d 244 (1999).

85. In pleading, little specificity required; pleadings to be liberally construed; pleadings adequate. Fowler v. Criticare Home Health Services, Inc., 27 Kan. App. 2d 869, 10 P.3d 8 (2000).

86. Section cited; claim of waiver is considered an affirmative defense; burden of proof discussed. Lyons v. Holder, 38 Kan. App. 2d 131, 139, 163 P.3d 343 (2007).

87. Discussion of case law relating to constructive fraud pleadings. Nelson v. Nelson, 288 Kan. 570, 205 P.3d 715 (2009).

88. Plaintiff's petition and response sufficient to avoid motion to dismiss. Pioneer Ridge Nursing Facility Operations v. Ermey, 41 Kan. App. 2d 414, 203 P.3d 4 (2009).

89. An affirmative defense that is not pled is effectively waived. Kansas Health Care Stabilization Fund v. St. Francis Hospital, 41 Kan. App. 2d 488, 203 P.3d 33 (2009).

90. Pleadings adequately presented an actionable claim for negligence; trial court reversed. Berry v. National Medical Services, Inc., 41 Kan. App. 2d 612, 205 P.3d 745 (2009).

91. Until parties' obligations under their guaranties were satisfied, they had no entitlement for relief. Emprise Bank v. Rumisek, 42 Kan. App. 2d 498, 215 P.3d 621 (2009).