Printable Format60-3302. Definitions. (a) "Product seller" means any person or entity that is engaged in the business of selling products, whether the sale is for resale, or for use or consumption. The term includes a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor or retailer of the relevant product, but does not include a health care provider, as defined in subsection (f) of K.S.A. 40-3401 and amendments thereto, who utilizes a product in the course of rendering professional services.
(b) "Manufacturer" includes a product seller who designs, produces, makes, fabricates, constructs or remanufactures the relevant product or component part of a product before its sale to a user or consumer. It includes a product seller or entity not otherwise a manufacturer that holds itself out as a manufacturer, or that is owned in whole or in part by the manufacturer.
(c) "Product liability claim" includes any claim or action brought for harm caused by the manufacture, production, making, construction, fabrication, design, formula, preparation, assembly, installation, testing, warnings, instructions, marketing, packaging, storage or labeling of the relevant product. It includes, but is not limited to, any action based on, strict liability in tort, negligence, breach of express or implied warranty, breach of, or failure to, discharge a duty to warn or instruct, whether negligent or innocent, misrepresentation, concealment or nondisclosure, whether negligent or innocent, or under any other substantive legal theory.
(d) "Harm" includes: (1) Damage to property; (2) personal physical injuries, illness and death; (3) mental anguish or emotional harm attendant to such personal physical injuries, illness or death. The term "harm" does not include direct or consequential economic loss.
History: L. 1981, ch. 231, § 2; L. 1992, ch. 307, § 5; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Survey of Kansas Law: Torts," William Edward Westerbeke, 33 K.L.R. 1, 47 (1984).
"Strict Products Liability for Misrepresentation," William E. Westerbeke, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XX, No. 6, 20 (1997).
"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.
Trading stamp act inapplicable to certain coupons and similar devices; manufacturers' exemptions; broad definition of "manufacturer." 94-54.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. In case based upon design defect, it is not error for court to define "unreasonably dangerous" in terms of Comment i of § 402A of the Restatement of Torts, Second. Lester v. Magic Chef, Inc., 230 K. 643, 661, 641 P.2d 353 (1982).
2. 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).
3. Retailer could be considered a manufacturer if garment contained retailer's labels. Alvarado v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 713 F.Supp. 1389, 1393 (1989).
4. Presumption that warnings noted in 60-3304 are adequate but rebuttable determined; error in granting summary judgment. Savina v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 247 K. 105, 126, 795 P.2d 915 (1990).
5. 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).
6. Distributor did not satisfy condition of retailer exception under products liability act to be exempt; within definition of manufacturer. National Gypsum Co. v. Dalemark Industries, Inc., 773 F.Supp. 1476 (1991).
7. Act applied to claim for damages caused by manufacturer's negligence and breach of implied warranty. Fennesy v. LBI Mgt., Inc., 18 K.A.2d 61, 62, 65, 847 P.2d 1350 (1993).
8. Material fact issue as to whether farmer's cattle died of latent disease triggering statute of repose. Koch v. Shell Oil Co., 815 F.Supp. 1434, 1435, 1440 (1993).
9. 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, 756, 861 P.2d 1299 (1993).
10. Cited; whether rabon oral larracide is a "harmful material" under 60-3303 triggering four-year statute of repose examined. Koch v. Shell Oil Co., 820 F.Supp. 1336, 1342 (1993).
11. Whether testing, delivery, or servicing performed by seller was remanufacturing for purposes of assessing liability examined. Stillie v. Am Intern., Inc., 841 F.Supp. 370, 374 (1993).
12. Whether material fact issue regarding whether company was manufacturer under KPLA precluded summary judgment examined. Davis v. U.S. Gauge, 844 F.Supp. 1443, 1445, 1448 (1994).
13. Whether remanufacturers and sellers in chain of distribution after remanufacture are subject to strict liability examined. Stillie v. Am Intern, Inc., 850 F.Supp. 960, 962 (1994).
14. Fact issue concerning whether manufacturer took sufficient precautions concerning defectiveness of product precluded summary judgment. Schoen by and through Schoen v. Spotlight Co., 979 F.Supp. 1379, 1383 (1997).
15. All legal theories of product liability governed by two-year statute of limitations. Pedro v. Armour Swift-Ekrich, 118 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1158 (2000).
16. Action was not removable to federal court because nondiverse distributor was fraudulently joined. Cooper v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 320 F.Supp.2d 1154, 1158 (2004).
17. Foreign parent manufacturer defendant was subject to specific personal jurisdiction. Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., 358 F.Supp.2d 1042, 1047 (2005).
18. Device-specific requirements established by FDA for medical devices preempt claims based upon state common-law, as incorporated in the Kansas Product Liability Act (KPLA). Troutman v. Curtis, 36 K.A.2d 633, 639, 143 P.3d 74 (2006).
19. 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).
20. Cited; economic damage claims must be stated under a different legal theory than K.P.L.A. Gonzalez v. Pepsico Inc., 489 F.Supp.2d 1233, 1241 (2007).
21. In a product liability cause of action, the Kansas product liability act permits a plaintiff to recover damages for any damage to property, including damage to the product itself. Corvias Military Living, LLC v. Ventamatic, Ltd., 310 K. 824, 831, 450 P.3d 797 (2019).