Simmons v. Porter
312 P.3d 345 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common-law doctrine of assumption of risk is abolished as an absolute bar to recovery in negligence actions involving employer-employee relationships not covered by workers' compensation. Such cases are to be governed by Kansas's statutory comparative fault system, where an employee's knowing exposure to a risk is a factor in apportioning fault rather than a complete defense.
Facts:
- Adam Simmons worked for Porter Farms as a farm truck and machinery mechanic.
- In February 2004, Simmons was assigned to remove a leaky fuel tank from a pickup truck.
- The tank was improperly secured to the truck's frame with a plumbing strap and bailing wire.
- Simmons began the removal process without first draining the gasoline from the tank.
- While Simmons was using a pneumatic wrench, the tank fell, spilling gasoline on him.
- For illumination, Simmons was using a shop light with an incandescent bulb, which hung from the truck's frame.
- As Simmons pushed himself out from under the truck, his foot caught the light's cord, causing the light to fall and the bulb to shatter.
- The shattered bulb ignited the spilled gasoline, causing Simmons to suffer serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Adam Simmons filed a negligence lawsuit against Porter Farms in a Kansas district court (court of first instance).
- Porter Farms raised assumption of risk as an affirmative defense and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Porter Farms, holding that the assumption of risk doctrine barred Simmons's claim.
- Simmons, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Porter Farms, as appellee.
- Simmons then petitioned the Kansas Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common-law doctrine of assumption of risk remain a viable absolute bar to an employee's recovery in a negligence action against an employer, or is it superseded by Kansas' statutory comparative fault system?
Opinions:
Majority - Biles, J.
No, the common-law doctrine of assumption of risk is no longer a viable absolute bar to recovery and is superseded by the statutory comparative fault system. Retaining assumption of risk as an all-or-nothing defense runs counter to the legislative intent behind comparative fault, which is to apportion liability based on the proportionate fault of all parties. The court notes that Kansas law had already steadily narrowed the doctrine's application and that a vast majority of other comparative fault jurisdictions have similarly abolished or merged assumption of risk into their comparative fault frameworks. The court found its prior precedents upholding the doctrine, such as Jackson and Tuley, were unpersuasive because they relied on legislative inaction and were decided on other grounds, making their analysis of the doctrine dicta. The court concludes that the historical distinction between assumption of risk (based in implied contract) and contributory negligence (based in tort) is no longer meaningful and that continuing to allow assumption of risk as a complete defense would perpetuate a 'gross legal inconsistency' by allowing an 'all-or-nothing' result that comparative fault was designed to eliminate.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Kansas tort law for workplace injuries not covered by the Workers Compensation Act. By abolishing assumption of risk as an absolute defense, the court brings Kansas in line with the modern majority approach and ensures that the principles of comparative fault apply consistently. This ruling prevents employers from completely avoiding liability merely by showing an employee was aware of a workplace danger. Instead, an employee's awareness and conduct will be weighed by the jury as a percentage of fault, making it more likely that injured employees can recover damages, albeit reduced by their own degree of fault.
Unlock the full brief for Simmons v. Porter