TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Important Notice - Kansas Law
2. Caption
3. Parties
4. Jurisdiction and Venue
5. Factual Allegations
6. Count I - Negligence (Alternative Theory)
7. Count II - Premises Liability (Alternative Theory)
8. Count III - Negligent Service to a Minor (Alternative Theory)
9. Damages
10. Jury Demand
11. Prayer for Relief
12. Verification
13. State-Specific Notes
14. Sources and References

IMPORTANT NOTICE - KANSAS LAW

Kansas does NOT have a dram shop statute. The Kansas legislature repealed its earlier dram shop enactments in 1949. Since that repeal, Kansas courts have consistently held that:

1. No common-law cause of action exists against persons who sell or furnish intoxicating liquor for injuries caused by the intoxicated person to third parties.
2. The legislature is the proper forum for creating any such liability; courts will not judicially create a dram shop action.

Key Precedent:
- Ling v. Jan's Liquors, 237 Kan. 629, 703 P.2d 731 (1985): Held there is no common-law redress against persons selling or furnishing intoxicating liquor for injuries caused by intoxicated persons absent a statute.
- Kudlacik v. Johnny's Shawnee, Inc., No. 115,869 (Kan. May 10, 2019): Confirmed that courts will not create a judicial cause of action and that any change must come from the legislature.

Limited Alternatives: The claims presented below are narrow alternative theories. They face significant legal challenges given the clear absence of dram shop liability in Kansas. Consult experienced Kansas counsel before filing.

Social Host Liability: K.S.A. 21-5608 prohibits furnishing alcohol to minors (social hosting). This creates a criminal prohibition that may, in limited circumstances, serve as a basis for negligence per se arguments, but no specific civil cause of action has been recognized.

CAPTION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [________________________________] COUNTY, KANSAS
DIVISION [________________________________]

[________________________________],
Plaintiff,

v.

[________________________________] (d/b/a [________________________________]),
Defendant(s).

Case No.: [________________________________]

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff [________________________________] is a resident of [________________________________] County, Kansas, and is the person injured as a result of the acts described herein.

2. Defendant [________________________________] (hereinafter "Provider Defendant") is a person or entity that sold, served, or furnished alcoholic beverages, operating as [________________________________], located at [________________________________], Kansas.

3. [________________________________] (hereinafter "Intoxicated Person") was at all relevant times a person who was served alcoholic beverages by the Provider Defendant.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to K.S.A. 60-201.

5. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to K.S.A. 60-602 because the acts giving rise to this claim occurred in [________________________________] County, Kansas.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. On or about [__/__/____], the Intoxicated Person was present at the Provider Defendant's establishment at [________________________________].

7. The Provider Defendant, through its agents, employees, or servants, sold, served, or furnished alcoholic beverages to the Intoxicated Person.

8. At the time of continued service, the Intoxicated Person exhibited signs of severe intoxication, including:

☐ Slurred speech
☐ Unsteady gait or impaired balance
☐ Glassy, bloodshot, or unfocused eyes
☐ Aggressive, belligerent, or threatening behavior
☐ Impaired motor coordination
☐ Strong odor of alcohol
☐ Other: [________________________________]

9. Following service, the Intoxicated Person [________________________________] [describe injurious conduct].

10. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered injuries including but not limited to [________________________________].

COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE (Alternative Theory)

11. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 10.

12. Independent of any duty related to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages, the Provider Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff arising from [________________________________] [describe specific basis for duty, e.g., control of premises, knowledge of specific dangerous propensity, prior incidents].

13. The Provider Defendant breached this duty by [________________________________].

14. The Provider Defendant's breach was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

COUNT II - PREMISES LIABILITY (Alternative Theory)

15. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 10.

16. The Provider Defendant owned, operated, or controlled the premises at [________________________________].

17. The Provider Defendant owed a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and to protect invitees from foreseeable dangers.

18. The Provider Defendant knew or should have known of a dangerous condition on its premises, specifically [________________________________] [e.g., "an intoxicated patron who was threatening violence and was permitted to leave the premises and operate a motor vehicle"].

19. The Provider Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to address this danger, including:

☐ Failing to call law enforcement
☐ Failing to arrange alternative transportation
☐ Failing to prevent the person from driving
☐ Failing to warn others of the danger
☐ Other: [________________________________]

20. The Provider Defendant's failure was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

COUNT III - NEGLIGENT SERVICE TO A MINOR (Alternative Theory)

21. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 10.

22. At the time of service, the Intoxicated Person was under the age of twenty-one (21), being [____] years old.

23. K.S.A. 21-5608 prohibits the furnishing of alcoholic beverages to persons under the legal drinking age.

24. The Provider Defendant violated K.S.A. 21-5608 by furnishing alcohol to the minor.

25. This statutory violation constitutes negligence per se or, at minimum, evidence of negligence.

26. Plaintiff is within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, and the harm suffered is the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent.

27. The Provider Defendant's violation was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

DAMAGES

28. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered:

☐ Past and future medical expenses: $[________________________________]
☐ Past and future lost wages and earning capacity: $[________________________________]
☐ Pain and suffering: $[________________________________]
☐ Mental anguish and emotional distress: $[________________________________]
☐ Loss of enjoyment of life: $[________________________________]
☐ Property damage: $[________________________________]
☐ Other: [________________________________]

JURY DEMAND

29. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

a. Enter judgment against Defendant(s) and in favor of Plaintiff;
b. Award compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
c. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
d. Award costs of this action;
e. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

VERIFICATION

STATE OF KANSAS
COUNTY OF [________________________________]

I, [________________________________], being duly sworn, state that I have read the foregoing Complaint and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

_____________________________________________
[________________________________], Plaintiff

Sworn to and subscribed before me this [____] day of [________________________________], [____].

_____________________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________________________
[________________________________]
Attorney for Plaintiff
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
Kansas Attorney Reg. No.: [________________________________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES

• NO DRAM SHOP STATUTE: Kansas repealed its dram shop statute in 1949.
• No Common-Law Action: Kansas courts have repeatedly declined to create a judicial dram shop cause of action (Ling v. Jan's Liquors; Kudlacik v. Johnny's Shawnee).
• Legislature Is Proper Forum: Courts have stated that any creation of dram shop liability must come from the legislature, not judicial action.
• Social Host Prohibition: K.S.A. 21-5608 prohibits furnishing alcohol to minors but does not create a specific civil cause of action.
• Alternative Theories: Plaintiffs must rely on general negligence, premises liability, or negligence per se theories based on criminal statutes. These face significant obstacles.
• Comparative Fault: Kansas follows a modified comparative fault system (K.S.A. 60-258a); plaintiff's recovery is reduced by percentage of fault and barred if equal to or greater than the combined fault of all defendants.
• Statute of Limitations: Two years for personal injury (K.S.A. 60-513).
• Practical Consideration: Given the hostile legal landscape, attorneys should carefully evaluate the strength of alternative theories before filing and consider pursuing claims directly against the intoxicated person.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Ling v. Jan's Liquors, 237 Kan. 629, 703 P.2d 731 (1985)
• Kudlacik v. Johnny's Shawnee, Inc., No. 115,869 (Kan. May 10, 2019)
• K.S.A. 21-5608 (Furnishing Alcohol to Minors)
• K.S.A. 60-258a (Comparative Fault)
• K.S.A. 60-513 (Statute of Limitations)