60-249a. Itemized verdict, personal injury actions; jury instructions. (a) Itemizing damages awarded. If the trier of fact finds for the plaintiff in an action for damages for personal injury, the trier of fact must itemize the amounts awarded for the following items of damage, subject to the provisions of subsection (c):
(1) Noneconomic injuries and losses, as follows:
(A) Pain and suffering,
(B) disability,
(C) disfigurement, and any accompanying mental anguish;
(2) reasonable expenses of necessary medical care, hospitalization and treatment received; and
(3) economic injuries and losses other than those itemized under subsection (b)(2)*.
(b) Future damages. When applicable, the trier of fact must further itemize the amounts required to be itemized under subsection (a) to reflect those amounts awarded for damages sustained to date and those awarded for damages reasonably expected to be sustained in the future.
(c) Damages considered by jury. In an action for damages for personal injury, the instructions to the jury and the itemized verdict form must refer only to those items of damage on which evidence has been introduced at trial.
History: L. 1987, ch. 224, § 1; L. 1993, ch. 109, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 120; July 1.
Revisor's Note:
* The reference to subsection (b)(2) should be to subsection (a)(2) instead.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"A Practitioner's Guide to Tort Reform of the '80s: What Happened and What's Left after Judicial Scrutiny," Jerry R. Palmer and Martha M. Snyder, 57 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 21, 27 (1988).
"Medical Malpractice in the 1990s: A Review of Changes in the Last Decade," Michael Sexton and Mark Sachse, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XV, No. 4, 10, 13 (1992).
"Recent Decisions Affecting the Trial of Cases," Ruth M. Benien, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVI, No. 3, 18, 21 (1993).
"Our Statutory System for Actual Damages in Tort: Kansas in Wonderland?" Bruce Keplinger and Scott M. Adam, 63 J.K.B.A. No. 1, 18, 22 (1994).
"A Closer Look at Statutory Caps," Bradley Post and Robert E. Keeshan, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXVI, No. 5, 6 (2003).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Loss of enjoyment of life admissible as it relates to disability, pain and suffering, but not separate nonpecuniary category. Leiker v. Gafford, 245 Kan. 325, 337, 340, 778 P.2d 823 (1989).
2. Loss of enjoyment of life as an element of disability, pain and suffering noted. Gregory v. Carey, 246 Kan. 504, 514, 791 P.2d 1329 (1990).
3. When verdict may be so contrary to instructions and evidence that new trial on damages required examined. Germann v. Blatchford, 246 Kan. 532, 533, 792 P.2d 1059 (1990).
4. Itemized verdict form examined; future pain and suffering distinguished from mental suffering. Kansas State Bank & Tr. Co. v. Specialized Transportation Services, Inc., 249 Kan. 348, 383, 819 P.2d 587 (1991).
5. Noted in holding that where defendant agrees to additur, plaintiff need not consent nor will new trial be granted. Dixon v. Prothro, 17 Kan. App. 2d 19, 20, 830 P.2d 1221 (1992).
6. Computation of damages examined where plaintiffs served dishwashing liquid rather than similar-looking alcoholic beverage. Cott v. Peppermint Twist Mgt. Co., 253 Kan. 452, 459, 856 P.2d 906 (1993).
|
|