KANSAS OFFICE of
  REVISOR of STATUTES

  

Home >> Statutes >> Back


Click to open printable format in new window.Printable Format
 | Next

60-3305. Manufacturer's or seller's duty to warn or protect against danger, when. In any product liability claim any duty on the part of the manufacturer or seller of the product to warn or protect against a danger or hazard which could or did arise in the use or misuse of such product, and any duty to have properly instructed in the use of such product shall not extend: (a) To warnings, protecting against or instructing with regard to those safeguards, precautions and actions which a reasonable user or consumer of the product, with the training, experience, education and any special knowledge the user or consumer did, should or was required to possess, could and should have taken for such user or consumer or others, under all the facts and circumstances;

(b) to situations where the safeguards, precautions and actions would or should have been taken by a reasonable user or consumer of the product similarly situated exercising reasonable care, caution and procedure; or

(c) to warnings, protecting against or instructing with regard to dangers, hazards or risks which are patent, open or obvious and which should have been realized by a reasonable user or consumer of the product.

History: L. 1981, ch. 231, § 5; July 1.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Survey of Kansas Law: Torts," William Edward Westerbeke, 33 K.L.R. 1, 50 (1984).

"Some Observations on the Kansas Product Liability Act (Part 2)," William Edward Westerbeke, 54 J.K.B.A. 39, 42 (1985).

"Successor Corporations—Liability for Defects in Predecessor's Products—Stratton v. Garvey International, Inc.," Loren W. Moll, 33 K.L.R. 791, 804 (1985).

"Statutes of Limitation, Statutes of Repose and Continuing Duties under the Kansas Product Liability Act," Steve R. Fabert, 36 W.L.J. 367 (1997).

"Kansas Supreme Court Affirms Strong Protection of KPLA & Rejects Third Restatement," Lyman R. Johnson & Stephen Bough, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXIII, No. 5, 14 (2000).

"Survey of Kansas Tort Law: Part II," William E. Westerbeke, 50 K.L.R. 225 (2002).

"Kansas Product Liability Law," Patrick A. Hamilton, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 30, No. 6, 8 (2007).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Kansas product liability act; liability of counties for providing or selling certain chemicals. 86-173.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. No duty to warn if plaintiff is already aware of danger; danger of explosion when hooking up gas wells is common knowledge. Mays v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 233 K. 38, 60, 661 P.2d 348 (1983).

2. Cited; duty of successor entity to warn of a defect in the product of a predecessor entity reviewed and applied. Stratton v. Garvey Internat'l, Inc., 9 K.A.2d 254, 265, 676 P.2d 1290 (1984).

3. Plaintiff entitled to trial on question whether defendant breached duty of ordinary care to warn of machine hazards. Sell v. Bertsch & Co., Inc., 577 F.Supp. 1393, 1397 (1984).

4. Cited; duty to warn employee of danger working with familiar machinery purchased from former employer examined. Olson v. U.S. Industries, Inc., 649 F.Supp. 1511, 1512 (1986).

5. Question of warning of open and obvious danger raised; motion for summary judgment in action against motorcycle manufacturer. Wessinger v. Vetter Corp., 716 F.Supp. 537, 540 (1989).

6. Question whether defendant/manufacturer owed duty to warn power company employee regarding alleged dangers in electrical switch examined. Miller v. G & W Elec. Co., 734 F.Supp. 450, 452 (1990).

7. Products liability insurer of insured hay bales manufacturer not a "manufacturer" or "product seller" within meaning of act. Deines v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 752 F.Supp. 989, 998 (1990).

8. Products liability action alleging that combine was unreasonably dangerous; foreseeable misuse; stipulation before first trial binding on retrial. Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 935 F.2d 1090 (1991).

9. No duty to warn of open and obvious risk of diving head first in shallow swimming pool; risk readily apparent. Neff v. Coleco Industries, Inc., 760 F.Supp. 864, 868 (1991).

10. Statute discussed; sophisticated user defense denied. Hendricks v. Comerio Ercole, 763 F.Supp. 505, 509 (1991).

11. Duty of manufacturer to warn user of danger during normal use of product; continuous duty. Pfeiffer v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 771 F.Supp. 1133 (1991).

12. On question certified (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 K. 741, 748, 756, 757, 861 P.2d 1299 (1993).

13. Whether exception to duty to warn applied to injured worker precluded summary judgment in product liability action examined. Stillie v. Am Intern., Inc., 841 F.Supp. 370, 375 (1993).

14. Whether product defect was obvious to reasonable user relieving manufacturer of duty to warn examined. Kerns v. G.A.C., Inc., 255 K. 264, 273, 875 P.2d 949 (1994).

15. Whether respondent lacked duty to warn where danger known to user in fabric flammability case examined. Miller v. Lee Apparel Co., 19 K.A.2d 1015, 1030, 881 P.2d 576 (1994).

16. Whether respondent had duty to warn plaintiff of dangers regarding repair of tires examined. Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp., 852 F.Supp. 933, 942 (1994).

17. Whether plaintiffs failed to establish defendant's lack of warning had causal connection with accident for summary judgment purposes examined. Duffee, by and through Thorton v. Murray Ohio Mfg., 879 F.Supp. 1078, 1081 (1995).

18. Fact issue regarding whether manufacturer knew clothing was noncompliant with federal flammability standards precluded summary judgment. Schoen by and through Schoen v. Spotlight Co., 979 F.Supp. 1379, 1382, 1385 (1997).

19. Warning on farm equipment precluded recovery in product liability action; summary judgment granted. Delaney v. Deere & Co., 985 F.Supp. 1009, 1015 (1997).

20. Issue of duty to warn regarding danger in railroad car filled with beans precluded summary judgment in products liability case. Garay v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 38 F.Supp.2d 892 (1999).

21. Subsection (c) applies only to a duty to warn, and Kansas does not follow§ 402A of Restatement of Torts which provides product bearing an adequate warning not in defective condition. Delaney v. Deere and Co., 268 K. 769, 999 P.2d 930 (2000).

22. Minor's negligence claim precluded by learned intermediary doctrine. Wright ex rel. Trust Co. of Kansas v. Abbot Labs., 259 F.3d 1226, 1234 (2001).

23. KPLA (60-3301 et seq.) did not overrule learned intermediary doctrine. Miller v. Pfizer, Inc. (Roerig Division), 196 F.Supp.2d 1095, 1121 (2002).

24. Plaintiff who was burned by hot drink was adequately warned of potential hazard by warning labels. McCroy ex rel. McCroy v. Coastal Mart, Inc., 207 F.Supp.2d 1265, 1275 (2002).

25. Defendant not product seller or manufacturer of fuel loading arm so as to have duty to warn under statute. Stanley v. Conco Phillips Pipe Line Co., 451 F.Supp.2d 1286, 1288 (2006).


 | Next

CURRENT SESSION
  A Summary of Special Sessions in Kansas
  Bill Brief for Senate Bill No. 1
  Bill Brief for House Bill No. 2001

LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL
  6/03/2024 Meeting Notice Agenda
  LCC Policies

REVISOR OF STATUTES
  Chapter 72 Statute Transfer List
  Kansas School Equity & Enhancement Act
  Gannon v. State
  Information for Special Session 2021
  General Info., Legal Analysis & Research
  2023 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2022 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2021 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2020 Amended & repealed Statutes
  2019 Amended & Repealed Statutes

USEFUL LINKS
Session Laws

OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES
Kansas Legislature
Administrative Services
Division of Post Audit
Research Department