Brown v. Keill
580 P.2d 867 (1978) 224 Kan. 195 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Kansas's comparative negligence statute, the common law doctrine of joint and several liability is abolished. A defendant's liability is limited to their proportionate fault, which requires determining the causal negligence of all parties to an occurrence, even those not formally joined as parties to the lawsuit.
Facts:
- Britt Brown (father) owned a Jaguar roadster.
- Brown's son, Britt M. Brown, was driving the Jaguar with his father's permission.
- The son was involved in a collision at a street intersection with a car driven by Patricia L. Keill.
- The collision caused $5,423.00 in damage to the Jaguar.
- The father, Britt Brown, was not involved in the collision and was not negligent in any way.
- Keill had previously settled her own potential claims against the son out of court.
Procedural Posture:
- Britt Brown (the father) sued Patricia L. Keill in Kansas state trial court to recover for the property damage to his vehicle.
- In her answer, Keill alleged the son was 90% at fault but did not formally join him as a party to the action.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the plaintiff (father) was 0% negligent, the son was 90% negligent, and the defendant Keill was 10% negligent.
- The court entered judgment for the plaintiff against Keill for $542.30, representing 10% of the total damages of $5,423.00.
- The plaintiff, Britt Brown, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Kansas, arguing he should be able to recover 100% of the damages from Keill.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Kansas comparative negligence statute, K.S.A. 60-258a, is a defendant's liability for damages limited to that defendant's own percentage of causal negligence, requiring the court to consider the fault of all persons involved in the occurrence, including non-parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Fromme, J.
Yes, a defendant's liability is limited to their proportionate fault, and the fault of all persons involved must be considered. The Kansas comparative negligence statute, K.S.A. 60-258a, was intended by the legislature to fundamentally change tort law by equating a party's liability to their degree of fault. Subsection (d) of the statute, which states each party is liable for the proportion of damages equivalent to their causal negligence, effectively abolishes the prior common law rule of joint and several liability. To properly apportion liability based on fault, it is necessary to determine the negligence of all parties to the occurrence that gave rise to the damages, even if one or more of those parties cannot be formally joined as a litigant or be held legally responsible for their share.
Analysis:
This decision marks a fundamental shift in Kansas tort law, moving from the plaintiff-friendly doctrine of joint and several liability to a system of pure several, or proportionate, liability. By requiring the trier of fact to consider the fault of all actors, including non-parties (so-called 'phantom tortfeasors'), the court ensures that a defendant will never be liable for more than their adjudicated percentage of fault. This holding places the risk of an insolvent, immune, or unidentifiable tortfeasor on the plaintiff rather than on the co-defendants. The ruling profoundly impacts litigation strategy, as defendants are now incentivized to identify all potential tortfeasors to reduce their own share of liability.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. Keill